Mr Driss PERSON was born in GPE in DATE . He entered GPE at DATE when he joined his father under the family reunion procedure . CARDINAL of his CARDINAL brothers and sisters have NORP nationality .

When he was DATE the applicant committed a number of criminal offences . On DATE the GPE - en - ORG sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for armed robbery . On CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for robbery .

When he had served these sentences he was extradited to GPE pursuant to a decree issued in DATE to serve a prison sentence for theft , from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE . At the end of that period he returned to GPE and went to live with his parents . He has asserted that he was gainfully employed from DATE to DATE .

Not having had a valid residence permit since DATE , Mr GPE went to ORG on DATE in order to regularise his situation . On DATE he was informed that deportation proceedings had been commenced against him on account of the convictions pronounced on DATE and QUANTITY DATE .

On DATE the Minister of the ORG made the following order against the applicant :

“ Having regard to sections CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended , concerning the conditions of entry and residence of aliens in GPE ,

Having regard to Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ,

Whereas PERSON , born on DATE at GPE ( GPE ) , committed in DATE the offences of attempted robbery , armed robbery and receiving stolen goods ,

ORG on account of his conduct the presence of the above - named alien in NORP territory constitutes a serious threat to public order ,

Having regard to the favourable opinion of the board provided for in section CARDINAL of the Ordinance , of CARDINAL DATE ,

On a proposal by ORG ,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS

Article CARDINAL : the above - named person is enjoined to leave GPE ;

Article CARDINAL : the Prefect of Police and the Prefects are instructed to serve and execute this order . ”

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the applicant applied to ORG for an order quashing the deportation order and an order staying its execution . He relied in particular on his right to respect for his private and family life , as guaranteed by LAW .

On DATE that court dismissed the applications in the following terms :

“ The submission based on the failure to give reasons for the impugned decision :

The submission based on an alleged error of law in the application of LAW of the LAW of DATE :

Notwithstanding Mr Driss PERSON ’s assertion that he has been lawfully resident in NORP territory since DATE and that when he entered the territory he was DATE , the documents in the case file show that he was extradited , had to leave the territory on CARDINAL DATE and was imprisoned in GPE until DATE . Even though the applicant did not leave NORP territory voluntarily on that occasion , he ceased to be normally resident in GPE within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the above - mentioned GPE . He subsequently returned to GPE and stayed there unlawfully . The fact that he then applied for a residence permit and the assertion that he had received no explicit reply to an application for a residence permit he had made in DATE have no bearing on the fact that he remained in NORP territory unlawfully . It follows that the submission based on a breach of the provisions of the second paragraph of LAW of the LAW fails on factual grounds .

The submission based on manifest error :

It does not appear from the documents in the file that the aliens deportation board provided for in LAW or the Minister of the ORG failed to examine all the evidence relating to the applicant ’s conduct and the various aspects of his situation in order to determine whether , after he had committed a number of criminal offences and been sentenced both in GPE and in GPE to several terms of imprisonment , his presence in NORP territory , at a time when he was living there unlawfully , constituted a serious threat to public order . Although PERSON Driss PERSON asserts that he completed his studies in GPE , that he has a steady job there and pays rent , that some of his brothers and sisters have acquired NORP nationality , that he has committed no further offences since serving the sentences mentioned above , that he is perfectly integrated into NORP society and that he has not maintained any links with GPE , those facts are not sufficient to establish that the Minister of the ORG made a manifest error .

The submission based on LAW :

In support of his arguments to the effect that the impugned decision constituted such a serious interference in his family life as to exceed what was necessary to preserve public order , PERSON Driss PERSON asserts that he no longer has any family ties with the country whose nationality he possesses , that he does not speak its language and has not lived there since DATE , that his whole family lives in GPE and that his youngest brothers and sisters have acquired NORP nationality . However , it appears from the documents in the file that the impugned decision , which was based on defence of public order , was necessary , in view of the applicant ’s conduct and the seriousness of the offences he had committed , for the defence of that order . That being so , it did not breach LAW . ”

On appeal by Mr GPE , the PERSON d’Etat gave judgment on DATE . It upheld ORG judgment in the following terms :

Mr ORG committed and was convicted of armed robbery , receiving stolen goods and assault with a tear - gas spray . The impugned deportation order was necessary , in view of the seriousness of those offences , for the defence of public order , and did not , given that Mr GPE is unmarried and childless , interfere disproportionately with his right to respect for his private and family life . That being so , it did not breach LAW .

It follows from all the above that Mr ORG fails in his claim that in the impugned judgment ORG wrongly dismissed his application to have the Minister of the ORG ’s order of CARDINAL DATE requiring him to leave GPE set aside . ”

NORP Since DATE the applicant has lived in GPE without a residence permit or a work permit ; since DATE he has cohabited with PERSON , a NORP national .

In NORP law deportation is a public - order measure , not a criminal penalty ( ORG decision no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG constitutionnel , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON Sirey DATE , CARDINAL ; ORG d’Etat , DATE , PERSON , PERSON juridique , ORG administratif DATE , CARDINAL ; and ORG , DATE , ORG périodique DATE , édition générale , II , DATE ) . It applies to aliens with a residence permit who live in GPE , but not to those who have entered illegally and against whom only a removal order may be made .

The deportation of aliens is governed by the provisions of the Ordinance of DATE concerning the conditions of entry and residence of aliens in GPE . LAW provides : “ all persons who do not have NORP nationality , whether they have a foreign nationality or are stateless , shall be deemed to be aliens . ” The basic provisions of the Ordinance have been amended by , inter alia , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ; and PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE .

The PERSON of DATE prescribed CARDINAL grounds for deportation and substantially altered its role ; deportation had been intended to guard against threats to public order , but it was now also used as punishment in certain cases where there had been a breach of the immigration rules .

That PERSON was rapidly replaced by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , in which the following CARDINAL grounds for deportation were retained :

( i ) the first , to which the ordinary rules of procedure applied , was where “ an alien ’s presence on NORP territory PERSON ] a serious threat to public order ” ( sections CARDINAL ) ;

( ii ) the second , for which there was a special procedure , concerned “ cases of extreme urgency [ and ] absolute necessity for the security of the ORG or public safety ” ( section CARDINAL ) .

That PERSON also prescribed the categories of aliens who could not be deported under the ordinary procedure and who were protected because of their age , the length of time they had spent in GPE , their family ties there , the services they had rendered and the fact that they had no criminal record .

The provisions relating to the definition of the protected categories , the substantive conditions and the safeguards provided under the ordinary procedure were alternately amended and restored by subsequent legislation .

In DATE it was a prerequisite to instituting the ordinary procedure used in the instant case , governed by sections CARDINAL of the Ordinance of DATE , that “ the alien ’s presence on NORP territory PERSON ] a serious threat to public order ” . Recourse to the special procedure required extreme urgency and an “ absolute necessity for the security of the ORG or public safety ” .

This procedure may properly be described as adversarial and applies where “ the alien proves that he entered GPE legally and that he is the lawful holder of a residence permit ” ( section CARDINAL ) .

An aliens deportation board for the département must be consulted . Such boards are composed of the president of the tribunal de grande instance of the administrative capital of the département or a judge delegated by him , who acts as chairman , a judicial officer ( magistrat ) appointed by the general assembly of the tribunal de grande instance of the administrative capital of the département and an administrative court judge . Its hearings are held in public . In DATE the Minister of the ORG had a reduced discretionary power . Since PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the board ’s opinion is no longer binding on the Minister .

Deportation orders made to preserve public order are intended to guard against DATE and not to punish DATE breaches of public order . With the sole exception of minors , no category of aliens is protected .

Under the special procedure none of the safeguards contained in the ordinary procedure are available . Thus , aliens are not informed in advance that their deportation is being considered , do not receive any special notification , are not given an opportunity to make representations and do not appear before the board ; the board does not hold a meeting , not even in the alien ’s absence . No formal steps have to be taken before the deportation order is issued and the order does not have to contain reasons .

The condition relating to absolute necessity for the security of the ORG or public safety was introduced by the PERSON of DATE . It was replaced in the PERSON of DATE by a requirement of “ a particularly serious threat to public safety ” , but was reintroduced in the PERSON of DATE . In practice section CARDINAL also covers cases concerning violent and anti - social behaviour by an alien over a long period since DATE ( ORG d’Etat , DATE , ORG , Recueil des arrêts du ORG d’Etat ( “ Rec . ” ) p. CARDINAL ) and rape and indecent assault with violence or taking the victim by surprise ( ORG d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , ORG . p. CARDINAL , and ORG d’Etat , DATE , NORP , ORG administratif DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

To the extreme urgency requirement , laid down as DATE , a requirement of “ absolute necessity for the security of the ORG and public safety ” was added in DATE . Extreme urgency is in practice relied on to ensure that aliens who have been convicted by the criminal courts and are serving their sentence can be deported as soon as they are released . Its substance is assessed on a case - by - case basis by the Minister , subject to review by the administrative courts .

For a long time the PERSON d’Etat ruled that the question whether there was any urgency itself came within the unfettered discretion of the Minister . From DATE it interpreted the requirement so as to limit its application solely to cases where the deportation was to take place within a very short time ( PERSON d’Etat , DATE , PERSON . p. CARDINAL ) . It later found that the urgency requirement had been satisfied where the alien was due to be released shortly ( PERSON d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , ORG v. PERSON , ORG . p. CARDINAL ) , then held that it was lawful to use the procedure against an alien who had been released from prison DATE before the deportation order was made ( ORG d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , ORG . , tables , p. CARDINAL , and DATE , PERSON , GPE DATE ) , or who had obtained early release DATE before the issue of a deportation order ( PERSON d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , application no . CARDINAL , ORG administratif , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . It also accepted that the Minister could use the extreme urgency procedure where , in connection with a deportation initially commenced under the ordinary procedure , the board had expressed an opinion against deportation . The PERSON d’Etat held that practice to be lawful “ provided that the requirements of section CARDINAL were satisfied at the time the order was made ” ( Conseil d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , ORG . p. CARDINAL ) .

A deportation order issued by the Minister of the ORG remains in force indefinitely . Since DATE such orders embody authority to execute and may be enforced without further order , using force if necessary .

NORP In general , deportation is carried out without delay ; however , the effects of the deportation order are not exhausted as a result of its execution .

Thus , deported aliens are precluded from returning to NORP territory for so long as the order has not been rescinded . If they do return , they are liable to the penalties applicable to cases of avoiding or attempting to avoid the execution of a deportation order and returning to GPE without leave to enter .

Furthermore , according to a circular issued by the Minister of the ORG on DATE concerning the application of LAW August and DATE , although the celebration of the marriage of an alien on NORP territory is not subject to any condition regarding the lawfulness of his stay , a prefect who is informed that the alien wishing to get married is in breach of the immigration rules may , before the wedding , make an order for his removal under section CARDINAL of the Ordinance of DATE and , after the ceremony , decide to expel him pursuant to that provision . The ORG d’Etat has held that an order for removal could lawfully be made against an alien who was about to marry a NORP national ( PERSON d’Etat , ORG , CARDINAL DATE , ORG , application no . DATE ) .

As deportation orders are not subject to any special rules , an application for judicial review may be made to the administrative court having territorial jurisdiction under the ordinary rules . Such applications have no suspensive effect and may therefore be accompanied by an application for a stay of execution even where the order has been enforced and the alien is outside GPE .

On DATE ( application no . DATE ) , the ORG d’Etat set aside a deportation order made against an NORP who was born in GPE and had always lived there , on the grounds that :

“ ... his close relatives live in GPE

The alien concerned may , at any time , and as often as he chooses , apply for the deportation order to be rescinded .

Where the application is submitted DATE after the final execution of the deportation order ” , the Minister of the ORG is not subject to any specific procedural requirements in reaching his decision . If the application is submitted “ after a period of DATE ... , it may be rejected only after the opinion of the deportation board for the département has been sought ; the alien may be represented before the board ” . Consultation is required even where the deportation order was made under the procedure for cases of extreme urgency . Since the PERSON of DATE came into force , the board ’s opinion is no longer binding on the Minister .

The PERSON d’Etat had considered that a deportation order was executed on the date the alien left NORP territory and that , in consequence , even if he subsequently returned to GPE illegally , DATE period ran from DATE ( ORG d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , ORG . p. CARDINAL ) . However , section CARDINAL bis , added to the Ordinance of DATE by the Law of DATE , now prevents a deportation order being rescinded if the alien has not left GPE or if he has returned there illegally : “ An application ... for the rescission of a deportation order ... submitted after the expiry of the time - limit for making an application for judicial review can not be granted unless the foreign national resides outside GPE . ”

An application to which there has been no response within DATE is deemed to have been rejected by the Minister of the ORG . Where the Minister of the ORG decides not to enforce a deportation order whilst at the same time refusing to rescind it , a compulsory residence order is made against the alien . If the alien continues to disturb public order , he may be deported . That constitutes a new decision , separable from the deportation order and in respect of which an application for judicial review may be made to the administrative court . In considering the application , the court examines the conduct of the alien during the period when his presence in GPE was tolerated . In reviewing the lawfulness of the measure the court therefore examines the position at the date of its judgment . However , a ground of appeal on the basis that the alien had mended his ways after the date of the order is ineffective ( ORG d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , ORG . p. CARDINAL ) .

The fact that a deportation order has been rescinded does not constitute leave to enter . If leave is sought , it may lawfully be refused .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , which is relevant in this case , provides :

“ Subject to the provisions of Articles DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL [ concerning aliens born in GPE of foreign parents ] and CARDINAL - CARDINAL [ concerning the minor children of parents who have acquired NORP nationality ] , no one may acquire NORP nationality or be restored to that nationality if either ( i ) he has been convicted of a serious crime ( crime ) or other major offence ( délit ) harmful to the fundamental interests of the nation or of an act of terrorism or ( ii ) whatever the nature of the offence , if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment , not suspended , of DATE .

( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) The same shall apply to a person who is the subject of a deportation order which has not been expressly set aside or rescinded or to a ban on re - entering NORP territory that has not expired .

( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) The same shall apply to persons whose stay in GPE is unlawful under the laws and treaties relating to the residence of aliens in GPE . ”


CASE OF BROGAN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-5;No violation of Art. 5-1;No violation of Art. 5-4;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Just satisfaction reserved

C. Russo;J.A. Carrillo Salcedo;N. Valticos

ORG The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He is a farmer and lives in GPE , GPE .

ORG He was arrested at his home at TIME on CARDINAL September CARDINAL by police officers under section CARDINAL of ORG ( Temporary LAW DATE ( " LAW " ) . He was then taken to PERSON , GPE , where he was detained until his release at TIME on DATE , that is a period of detention of DATE and TIME .

ORG Within TIME of his arrest , he was questioned about his suspected involvement in an attack on a police mobile patrol which occurred on CARDINAL DATE in GPE and resulted in the death of a police sergeant and serious injuries to another police officer . He was also interrogated concerning his suspected membership of ORG ( " IRA " ) , a proscribed organisation for the purposes of LAW . He maintained total silence and refused to answer any questions put to him . In addition , he turned away from his questioners and stared at the floor , ceiling or wall and periodically stood to attention . He was visited by his solicitor on DATE .

ORG The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He is at present unemployed and lives in GPE , GPE .

ORG He was arrested at his home by police officers at TIME on DATE under LAW of LAW . He was then taken to PERSON , GPE , where he was detained until his release at TIME on DATE , that is a period of detention of DATE and TIME .

ORG Within TIME of his arrest , he was questioned about the planting of a land - mine intended to kill members of the security forces on DATE and a blast incendiary bomb attack on DATE , both of which occurred in GPE . He was also interrogated about his suspected provision of firearms and about his suspected membership of ORG . He maintained complete silence apart from CARDINAL occasion when he asked for his cigarettes . In CARDINAL interview , he spat several times on the floor and across the table in the interview room . He was visited by his solicitor on CARDINAL and DATE .

ORG The third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He is at present unemployed and lives in GPE , GPE .

ORG He was arrested at his home at TIME on DATE by a police officer under LAW of LAW . He was then taken to ORG , GPE , where he was detained until his release at TIME on DATE , that is a period of DATE and TIME .

ORG Within TIME of his arrest , he was questioned about the murder of a soldier in a bomb attack in GPE on DATE and the murder of another soldier during a petrol bomb and gunfire attack in GPE on DATE . He was also interrogated about his suspected membership of ORG . Apart from CARDINAL interview when he answered questions of a general nature , he refused to answer any questions put to him . In addition , he periodically stood up or sat on the floor of the interview room . He was visited by his solicitor on DATE .

ORG The fourth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He is an apprentice joiner and lives in GPE , GPE .

ORG He was arrested at his home at TIME on DATE by police officers under LAW of LAW . He was then taken to ORG ( " ORG " ) Station , GPE , where he was detained until his release at TIME on DATE , that is a detention period of DATE and TIME .

ORG Within TIME of his arrest , he was questioned about the armed robbery of post offices in GPE on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and a conspiracy to murder members of the security forces . He was also interrogated concerning his suspected membership of ORG ( " FAC " ) , a proscribed terrorist organisation . He remained silent in response to all questions except certain questions of a general nature and sought to disrupt the interviews by rapping on heating pipes in the interview room , singing , whistling and banging his chair against the walls and on the floor . He was visited by his solicitor on DATE .

ORG All of the applicants were informed by the arresting officer that they were being arrested under LAW of LAW and that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting them to have been involved in the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of GPE . They were cautioned that they need not say anything , but that anything they did say might be used in evidence .

ORG On DATE following his arrest , each applicant was informed by police officers that the Secretary of ORG for GPE had agreed to extend his detention by a further DATE under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act . None of the applicants was brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power , nor were any of them charged after their release .

ORG The emergency situation in GPE in DATE and the attendant level of terrorist activity form the background to the introduction of ORG ( Temporary Provisions ) Act DATE ( " LAW " ) . DATE , CARDINAL deaths were attributable to terrorism in GPE as compared with CARDINAL in GPE . In DATE , the number of deaths was significantly lower than in DATE but organised terrorism continued to thrive .

ORG LAW came into force on DATE . The LAW proscribed the ORG and made it an offence to display support in public for that organisation in GPE . The ORG was already a proscribed organisation in GPE . The LAW also conferred special powers of arrest and detention on the police so that they could deal more effectively with the threat of terrorism ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

ORG LAW was subject to renewal DATE by ORG so that , inter alia , the need for the continued use of the special powers could be monitored . The LAW was thus renewed until DATE when it was re - enacted with certain amendments .

Under LAW of LAW , the special powers were subject to parliamentary renewal DATE . LAW was in turn renewed DATE until DATE , when it was re - enacted with certain amendments . LAW , which came into force in DATE , proscribed the ORG as well as the IRA . It has been renewed DATE but will expire in DATE , when the ORG intend to introduce permanent legislation .

ORG LAW was reviewed by ORG in a report published in DATE and subsequently by PERSON in a report published in DATE . DATE reports on LAW have been presented to ORG by Sir PERSON ( for DATE and DATE ) and PERSON ( for DATE and DATE ) , who also completed in DATE a wider - scale review of the operation of LAW .

ORG These reviews were commissioned by the Government and presented to ORG to assist consideration of the continued need for the legislation . The authors of these reviews concluded in particular that in view of the problems inherent in the prevention and investigation of terrorism , the continued use of the special powers of arrest and detention was indispensable . The suggestion that decisions extending detention should be taken by the courts was rejected , notably because the information grounding those decisions was highly sensitive and could not be disclosed to the persons in detention or their legal advisers . For various reasons , the decisions fell properly within the sphere of the executive .

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW , substantially the same as those of the DATE and DATE Acts , are as follows :

" CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) [ A ] constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be

( b ) a person who is or has been concerned in the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies ;

( CARDINAL ) The acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies are

( a ) acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) A person arrested under this section shall not be detained in right of the arrest for CARDINAL after his arrest ; but the Secretary of ORG may , in any particular case , extend the period of TIME by a period or periods specified by him .

( CARDINAL ) Any such further period or periods shall not exceed DATE in all .

( CARDINAL ) The following provisions ( requirement to bring accused person before the court after his arrest ) shall not apply to a person detained in right of the arrest

( d ) Article CARDINAL of ORG ( GPE ) Order DATE ;

( CARDINAL) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to any power of arrest exercisable apart from this section . "

ORG According to the definition given in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , terrorism " means the use of violence for political ends , and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear " . An identical definition of terrorism in GPE ( Emergency LAW Act DATE was held to be " in wide terms " by ORG , which rejected an interpretation of the word " terrorist " that would have been " in narrower terms than popular usage of the word ‘ LOC might connote to a police officer or a layman " ( LOC v. Chief Constable for GPE [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL at CARDINAL , per Lord PERSON ) .

ORG Article CARDINAL of ORG ( GPE ) Order DATE , declared inapplicable by section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , provides that where a person arrested without warrant is not within TIME released from custody , he must be brought before a ORG as soon as practicable thereafter but not TIME after his arrest .

ORG GPE ( Emergency LAW Act DATE also conferred special powers of arrest without warrant . LAW provided that a constable could arrest without warrant any person whom he suspected of being a terrorist . Such a person could be detained for CARDINAL without being brought before a court .

LAW has been amended by GPE ( Emergency Provisions ) Act DATE , which came into force on DATE . The powers of arrest under LAW have been replaced by a power to enter and search LOC for the purpose of arresting a suspected terrorist under LAW of LAW .

ORG In order to make a lawful arrest under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW , the arresting officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person being arrested is or has been concerned in the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism . In addition , an arrest without warrant is subject to the applicable common law rules laid down by ORG in the case of ORG DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL at CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The person being arrested must in ordinary circumstances be informed of the true ground of his arrest at the time he is taken into custody or , if special circumstances exist which excuse this , as soon thereafter as it is reasonably practicable to inform him . This does not require technical or precise language to be used provided the person being arrested knows in substance why .

In the case of ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL at CARDINAL , in which the arrested person sought a writ of habeas corpus , ORG of GPE discussed section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) . The arresting officer had told the applicant that he was arresting him under section CARDINAL of LAW as he suspected him of being involved in terrorist activities . ORG held that the officer had communicated the true ground of arrest and had done what was reasonable in the circumstances to convey to the applicant the nature of his suspicion , namely that the applicant was involved in terrorist activities . Accordingly , ORG found that the lawfulness of the arrest could not be impugned in this respect .

ORG The arresting officer ’s suspicion must be reasonable in the circumstances and to decide this the court must be told something about the sources and grounds of the suspicion ( per PERSON in PERSON v. Chief Constable of the ORG and ORG , decision of ORG , DATE ) .

ORG Under ordinary law , there is no power to arrest and detain a person merely to make enquiries about him . The questioning of a suspect on the ground of a reasonable suspicion that he has committed an arrestable offence is a legitimate cause for arrest and detention without warrant where the purpose of such questioning is to dispel or confirm such a reasonable suspicion , provided he is brought before a court as soon as practicable ( NORP v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG at CARDINAL and Holgate - Mohammed v. Duke [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL at CARDINAL ) .

On the other hand , Lord PERSON held in the case of ORG ( loc . cit . at CARDINAL ) that under LAW no specific crime need be suspected to ground a proper arrest under LAW ( CARDINAL)(b ) . He added ( ibid . ) :

" ... [ I]t is further to be noted that an arrest under LAW ) leads ... to a permitted period of detention without preferring a charge . No charge may follow at all ; thus an arrest is not necessarily ... the first step in a criminal proceeding against a suspected person on a charge which was intended to be judicially investigated . "

ORG In GPE , applications for extended detention beyond the initial TIME period are processed at senior police level in GPE and then forwarded to the Secretary of ORG for GPE for approval by him or , if he is not available , a junior minister .

There are no criteria in LAW ( or its predecessors ) governing decisions to extend the initial period of detention , though strict criteria that have been developed in practice are listed in the reports and reviews appended to the Government ’s memorial .

According to statistics quoted by ORG in its written submissions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , PERCENT of police requests for extended detention in GPE between the entry into force of LAW in DATE and DATE were refused by the Secretary of ORG .

ORG The principal remedies available to persons detained under LAW are an application for a writ of habeas corpus and a civil action claiming damages for false imprisonment .

ORG Under LAW , a person may be arrested and detained in right of arrest for a total period of DATE ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) - see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the CARDINAL LAW provides that a person detained pursuant to an arrest under LAW CARDINAL of the Act " shall be deemed to be in legal custody when he is so detained " . However , the remedy of habeas corpus is not precluded by paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) cited above . If the initial arrest is unlawful , so also is the detention grounded upon that arrest ( per PERSON in the GPE case , loc . cit . , at CARDINAL ) .

ORG Habeas corpus is a procedure whereby a detained person may make an urgent application for release from custody on the basis that his detention is unlawful .

The court hearing the application does not sit as a court of appeal to consider the merits of the detention : it is confined to a review of the lawfulness of the detention . The scope of this review is not uniform and depends on the context of the particular case and , where appropriate , the terms of the relevant statute under which the power of detention is exercised . The review will encompass compliance with the technical requirements of such a statute and may extend , inter alia , to an inquiry into the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest ( ex parte ORG , loc . cit . , and PERSON , loc . cit . ) . A detention that is technically legal may also be reviewed on the basis of an alleged misuse of power in that the authorities may have acted in bad faith , capriciously or for an unlawful purpose ( NORP v. Governor of FAC , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG Bench Reports CARDINAL and R v. FAC ( Governor ) , ex parte NORP [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

The burden of proof is on the respondent authorities which must justify the legality of the decision to detain , provided that the person applying for a writ of habeas corpus has firstly established a prima facie case ( PERSON v. Secretary of ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

ORG A person claiming that he has been unlawfully arrested and detained may in addition bring an action seeking damages for false imprisonment . Where the lawfulness of the arrest depends upon reasonable cause for suspicion , it is for the defendant authority to prove the existence of such reasonable cause ( PERSON v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Queen ’s Bench Reports CARDINAL and PERSON , loc . cit . , at CARDINAL ) .

In false imprisonment proceedings , the reasonableness of an arrest may be examined on the basis of the well - established principles of judicial review of the exercise of executive discretion ( see PERSON , loc . cit . ) .


The applicants are CARDINAL siblings , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , and their mother PERSON . The latter was born in DATE and the other applicants in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . All applicants are NORP nationals and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr J.M.M. Verstrepen , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE , PERSON ( the fifth applicant ) married Mr Benamar in GPE , where both of them were living and continued to live after their marriage . The first CARDINAL applicants were born out of this marriage .

On DATE , PERSON marriage with PERSON was dissolved in GPE . PERSON waived her rights and obligations visà - vis her husband and the CARDINAL children . The court that pronounced the divorce entrusted the care and custody of the CARDINAL children to Mr Benamar .

On DATE , PERSON remarried in the GPE . Her new husband , PERSON PERSON , is a NORP national living in the GPE and holder of a permanent residence permit . On the basis of this marriage , PERSON was granted a GPE residence permit .

On DATE , Mr Benamar died in GPE . On DATE , after a NORP court had entrusted her with the care and custody of the CARDINAL children , PERSON travelled to GPE and , on DATE , returned to the GPE with the CARDINAL children .

On DATE , the CARDINAL children applied for a GPE residence permit for the purpose of stay with their mother .

In CARDINAL separate decisions taken on DATE , the head of police ( korpschef ) of the Middle and GPE region rejected these requests . The head of police noted at the outset that the CARDINAL children did not hold the required provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) issued by the GPE authorities in GPE . Such a visa is normally a prerequisite for the grant of a residence permit which confers more permanent residence rights . The head of police further held that a number of requirements for a residence permit for the purpose of ( extended ) family reunion were not met . On this point , the head of police concluded that it had not been established DATE and DATE there had been close family ties ( gezinsband ) between the children and PERSON , since the children had been living in another family unit , i.e. that of their father , and PERSON had been unable to demonstrate that , during that period , she had financially contributed to the children 's care and upbringing . Furthermore , PERSON did not comply with the requirement of having adequate housing . The head of police further considered that the children 's presence in the GPE did not serve an essential national interest , that there were no grounds for granting their request for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature , and that no obligation for the GPE authorities to allow family reunion on its territory could be derived from LAW .

On DATE , the CARDINAL children filed an administrative appeal with the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) . On DATE , after the Deputy Minister had decided that they were not allowed to remain in the GPE pending the determination of their appeal , the children requested the President of ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE to issue an interim measure to the effect that they would not be expelled pending the proceedings on their appeal .

On DATE , the President of ORG granted the children 's request for an interim measure . Having noted that DATE had elapsed since the administrative appeal had been filed and that it was still pending , the President considered that the Deputy Minister apparently did not attach great importance to an expulsion at short notice whereas it was plausible that the children had a great interest in being allowed to remain in the GPE pending the determination of their appeal .

On DATE , the first applicant and PERSON – who were assisted by their lawyer – were heard before an official commission ( ambtelijke commissie ) on the appeal filed against the decisions of DATE . In the course of this hearing , PERSON stated inter alia that , after she had moved to the GPE , she had remained in contact with her CARDINAL children in GPE , both through annual visits and through telephone conversations . Her ex - husband had been an alcoholic and had died as a consequence thereof . He and the children had lived in the house of a sister of her ex - husband who had also lived there . Her oldest daughter had cooked and cared for the other CARDINAL children . Her parents , who also lived in the GPE , owned a house in GPE and she had stayed in that house during her visits to GPE . CARDINAL of her CARDINAL siblings were living in the GPE ; CARDINAL sister still lived in GPE but not near the place where her ex - husband had been living . She had also contributed financially and materially to the children 's care and upbringing , by sending them money and clothes via friends and relatives .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister rejected the administrative appeal brought by the CARDINAL children . The Deputy Minister found that the criteria for family reunion had not been met given that the factual close family ties ( feitelijke gezinsband ) between the children and PERSON had to be regarded as having been severed , at least since DATE when PERSON leaving the CARDINAL children with her ex - husband in GPE DATE had moved to the GPE where she had founded a new family unit with PERSON of which the CARDINAL children did not form a part , whereas this situation had been intended as being a permanent arrangement . The Deputy Minister further considered that it had not been established that close family ties had been maintained by ORG after DATE , either through financial support or parental decisions . The Deputy Minister also found that it had not been established that it had been impossible for PERSON to have custody of the children transferred to her sooner and that , for this reason , it had not been possible to seek reunion earlier . As to the children 's argument that , since their arrival in the GPE , they had formed a part of PERSON family unit there , the Deputy Minister held that admission for family reunion was only possible if the actual close family ties between a parent and a child had never been severed . The Deputy Minister therefore concluded that the CARDINAL children were not eligible for a residence permit for family reunion under the domestic immigration rules .

As to the question whether a refusal to admit the children to the GPE would entail disproportionate hardship , the Deputy Minister noted that the first applicant was born and raised in GPE where she had lived for DATE before coming to the GPE , and considered that she could be expected to fend for herself independently in GPE . The Minister further held that it had not appeared that she had integrated into GPE society and become alienated from NORP society to such an extent that it could not be asked of her to return to GPE , or that prior to her arrival in the GPE she had encountered such problems that it would be unreasonable to expect her to return to GPE . On this point , the Deputy Minister noted that , although her father had died , it had appeared during the hearing before the official commission that the first applicant – without any help from her father – already regularly had had to assume the care for herself and her siblings , and found that it had not been established that she would not have , according to local standards , acceptable future prospects in GPE . As regards the other children , the Deputy Minister held that they could return to GPE together with their oldest sister who could – like she had already done prior to their arrival in the GPE and in so far as necessary DATE provide them with ( a part of ) the necessary care . The Deputy Minister further considered that her brothers PERSON and PERSON DATE given their DATE would be less and less dependent on their oldest sister as regards their actual DATE care and would to an increasing degree be able to fend for themselves independently . In this context , the Deputy Minister further pointed out that financial support for the children 's living expenses could be provided by transferring money from the GPE . Although the children 's situation in GPE would be less favourable than in the GPE , the Deputy Minister did not find this a reason to deviate from the applicable immigration rules .

In so far as the children relied on LAW , the Deputy Minister held , as regards the first applicant , that she had already come of age when she applied for a residence permit . As her relationship with PERSON was one between adult relatives , and having found no indication that this relationship comprised more than the normal emotional ties that exist between parents and adult children , the Deputy Minister held that their relationship did not constitute family life within the meaning of LAW . On this point , the Deputy Minister did not find it established that the care provided by PERSON to the first applicant had been of such a nature that it could not be regarded as the normal care with which parents should provide their children . The Deputy Minister further considered it of importance that their separation had resulted from PERSON free choice to settle in the GPE , and that another indication for the absence of a special relationship of dependency between them was formed by the fact that PERSON had been living in the GPE since DATE whereas it was not until DATE that she had made demonstrable efforts to be reunited with the first applicant in the GPE . As regards the other CARDINAL children , the Deputy Minister accepted that there was family life within the meaning of Article QUANTITY between them and PERSON , but that the interests of the GPE authorities in maintaining a restrictive immigration policy outweighed the children 's interests in exercising their family life with PERSON in the GPE . On this point , the Deputy Minister considered that a refusal to admit the children to the GPE did not prevent them from exercising their family life with PERSON in the way they had before they came to the GPE and that PERSON had made a conscious decision at the time to leave GPE and to leave her children behind . Consequently , their separation had not been caused by any public authority 's involvement . The Deputy Minister held that in a situation like that of the applicants , where family life had been voluntarily reduced to the present level , it could not be required from the GPE authorities to make provisions allowing to deepen and intensify family life . The Deputy Minister further considered that no objective obstacles had appeared to the family life at issue being exercised outside the GPE .

On DATE , the CARDINAL children filed an appeal with ORG of The Hague .

In its ruling of DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG of The Hague rejected the children 's appeal . It did point out that the Deputy Minister had incorrectly found that there was no family life within the meaning of LAW between Mrs Boudhan and the first applicant , but did not conclude that this constituted a ground for declaring the appeal well - founded in view of the reasons stated by the Deputy Minister for holding that DATE had not been violated . No further appeal lay against this decision .

Until DATE , the admission , residence and expulsion of aliens were regulated by the DATE LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet ) . Further rules were laid down in LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit ) , the Regulation on Aliens ( Voorschrift Vreemdelingen ) and LAW ) . On DATE , the DATE LAW was replaced by QUANTITY . On DATE , LAW , the Regulation on Aliens and LAW were replaced by new versions based on LAW .

As a rule , anyone wishing to apply for a residence permit in the GPE must first apply from his or her country of origin to the GPE Minister of ORG for a provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) . Only once such a visa has been issued abroad may a residence permit for the GPE be granted . An application for a provisional residence visa is assessed on the basis of the same criteria as a residence permit .

The Government pursue a restrictive immigration policy due to the population and employment situation in the GPE . Aliens are eligible for admission only on the basis of obligations arising from international agreements , or if their presence serves an essential national interest , or on compelling humanitarian grounds .

The admission policy for family reunion purposes was laid down in LAW . The phrase “ actually belonging to the family unit ” ( “ feitelijk behoren QUANTITY ” ) used in GPE law only partly overlaps with the term “ family life ” in LAW . The former is understood to mean , for instance , that the close family ties ( gezinsband ) between the child and its parents whom it wishes to join in the GPE already existed in another country and have been maintained . For the rest , the question of whether the close family ties should be deemed to have been severed is answered on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each specific case . Factors taken into consideration include the length of time during which parent and child have been separated and the reasons for the separation , the way in which the relationship between parent and child has been developed during the separation , the parent 's involvement in the child 's care and upbringing , custody arrangements , the amount and frequency of the parent 's financial contributions to the child 's care and upbringing , the parent 's intention to send for the child as soon as possible and his / her efforts to do so , and the length of time that the child has lived in a family other than with the parent .

The burden of proving that the close family ties between parent and child have not been severed rests with the parent residing in the GPE . The longer the parent and child have been separated , the heavier the burden of proof on the person in the GPE becomes . It is then incumbent on the parent to present sound reasons as to why he or she did not seek to bring the child to the GPE sooner .

it residence in the GPE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .

The proceedings concerning the applicant ’s patent rights

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG against ORG and CARDINAL individuals . He sought to have it established that the defendants had violated his patent rights in that they had utilised without licence CARDINAL of his inventions when creating a military defence tool for armoured vehicles . The applicant was represented by his patent agent .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . In DATE , the applicant had his patent cancelled , being of the view that it followed from the decision of ORG that it could only be reviewed if he first abandoned his patent protecting the invention . Subsequently , he appealed against ORG decision , maintaining that the defendants had used his invention without licence .

On DATE the appellate bench of ORG quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case to ORG .

In the resumed proceedings the defendants filed a preparatory paper with ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG , establishing that the GPE invention had been based on a different technical solution than that of the applicant and , that , therefore , the former had not illegally used the latter ’s invention , again dismissed the action . The applicant appealed .

In DATE the appellate bench of ORG appointed a technical expert , ORG of ORG , which submitted its opinion to the court on DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted a counter - opinion prepared by other experts .

The appellate bench of ORG upheld the first - instance decision on DATE . The courts relied on documentary evidence , the opinion of the technical expert and the parties’ testimony . The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG .

On DATE the review bench of ORG declared the applicant ’s petition inadmissible , without examining the merits , since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of LAW .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG , alleging that the documents submitted by the defendants during the proceedings had been forged . On DATE , after a remittal , ORG terminated the investigation in the absence of any crime , which decision was upheld by ORG in DATE .

Civil proceedings against ORG

In DATE the applicant brought an official liability action against ORG before ORG , alleging that ORG wrong decision had forced him to abandon his patent rights in DATE .

On DATE the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It found that the applicant had erred in accepting a non - final decision ─ against which he appealed ─ as a binding legal opinion and , therefore , ORG was not responsible for his alleged loss . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s petition . The courts relied on documentary evidence and the parties’ testimony .


On DATE the applicant , Mr PERSON , was committed for trial by jury at ORG in GPE on CARDINAL counts arising out of his relationship with a young girl : indecent assault , CARDINAL counts of rape , unlawful sexual intercourse , kidnapping and CARDINAL counts of making a threat to kill . The trial , before a High Court judge and a jury , lasted DATE between DATE and DATE . Throughout the trial the applicant , who sat in a glass- fronted dock , was represented by solicitor and counsel . His counsel had been in practice for DATE and specialised in criminal work .

On DATE , having been found guilty of indecent assault , CARDINAL count of rape , kidnapping and CARDINAL count of making a threat to kill , the applicant was sentenced to a total of DATE imprisonment . He is currently serving this sentence in Her FAC Prison PERSON , in GPE .

During the trial evidence was given by , among others , Miss PERSON , the alleged victim of the offences who was then DATE , as well as her mother and sister . When PERSON gave evidence the judge directed that she be moved nearer to himself and the jury since it was difficult to hear what she was saying .

On DATE the applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction to a single judge of ORG ) ( " ORG " ) on the ground , inter alia , that at his trial he could not hear the proceedings . This was refused on DATE as there was found to be no merit in any of his proposed grounds .

On DATE the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal to a full court of ORG . He claimed , inter alia , that he had been unable to hear the original proceedings as the acoustics in the court had been inadequate . He also submitted a letter in which the prison officer who had guarded him in the dock during the trial confirmed that the applicant had on a number of occasions complained to him of his inability to hear the witnesses . The letter stated inter alia :

" On CARDINAL occasions I called his solicitor and he was told the problem . On CARDINAL of these occasions he told the [ applicant ] not to worry as his barrister was doing a good job . I have to say that I could not hear what the witnesses were saying . "

It is not disputed that the applicant was unable to hear some of the evidence nor that this was communicated to his solicitor , counsel and the prison officer guarding him . The trial transcript reveals that the applicant was , however , able to hear the indictment read out at the beginning of the trial and pleaded " not guilty " to each of the CARDINAL counts put to him .

At no time during the trial was any complaint or representation made to the court or to any of its officials by the applicant or his lawyers concerning the claim that he could not hear the proceedings .

The applicant complained to the Solicitors’ ORG about , inter alia , the solicitor ’s failure to take action in respect of his difficulties in hearing the evidence . In a letter dated DATE to ORG , the applicant ’s solicitor commented as follows on the applicant ’s claims :

" Mr ORG ’s trial was apparently the first case to be heard at the new ORG building . Throughout the trial Mr ORG sat silently in the dock . He told me that he is someone who has a hearing problem . I assume that his failure to hear what was said relates mainly to the evidence given against him by the complainant ( PERSON ) . The prosecution allegation was that Mr ORG had abused , raped , kidnapped and threatened to kill [ the complainant ] and that this conduct had been going on for DATE . She claimed to have told no one because of her fear of violence from Mr ORG and because of threats he allegedly made to harm her and her family . She spoke in a soft voice and the judge directed that she should give her evidence sitting at a table positioned between counsel and the judge . This meant that she was closer to the jury and her upper body was therefore visible to the jury rather than obscured by the witness box . Notwithstanding this she gave her evidence with her head bowed answering questions often with one word answers in a soft voice . I was nearer to her than the defendant . I could hear what she was saying . It is clear that the jury , the judge and counsel could also hear . Because of the court layout it would have been difficult for the defendant to have heard but not impossible if his hearing had been unimpaired . I had taken full instructions from Mr ORG upon the committal papers in the form of a CARDINAL page statement . Counsel was in my view very well acquainted with the detail of that statement and put to the complainant all matters which should have been put . I agree that Mr ORG told me and counsel that he could not hear everything that was being said . Counsel took the view ( which I shared ) that as she and the jury could hear and as she would no doubt have had the opportunity of taking instructions upon any matters arising which were not contained in her brief , then there was nothing which needed to be done . It is my view that if Mr ORG had been placed close to the complainant and facing her at the time that she was giving her evidence , then this would have been viewed by the jury as an indication of the intimidating behaviour of Mr ORG about which [ M. ] was complaining . "

On DATE the full ORG refused the applicant ’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction .

It held , inter alia , as follows :

" We have read the grounds of appeal against conviction upon which he would seek to rely . There is no substance in any CARDINAL of them . We make reference specifically to CARDINAL , however , because his complaint is that he did not receive a fair trial on account , so he puts it , of ‘ poor PERSON which prevented him from hearing the proceedings and the failure of his representative , that is to say his solicitor , to remedy that . We have seen a letter from a prison officer relating to this matter . There would appear to be something in the complaint of the applicant , namely that he could not hear properly at all times what was going on . There is no doubt in our minds , however , that his solicitor and his counsel had not the slightest difficulty in following the proceedings and in representing him in a way which could not possibly be complained about . "

On DATE , the applicant was informed by ORG that he could not appeal to ORG , since he had not had a substantive appeal dismissed by ORG .

A similar complaint concerning acoustics in the courtroom in which the applicant had been tried , and which was in constant use from the time of its opening in DATE , was made in CARDINAL other case over DATE after the applicant ’s conviction . As a result , the landlords of the court building commissioned a report from a company specialising in acoustics . This report , dated DATE , noted that in DATE , before the building came into use as a court , tests showed that acoustic design targets had been met . It concluded that a person speaking from the PERSON was intelligible in the front seat of the dock with the glass screen in position . The report also stated that the effect of the glass screens upon audibility was not considered to involve a significant drop in sound level .

Notwithstanding these findings , it was subsequently decided to instal a reflector panel above the dock to overcome the very small sound loss which was due to the glass screen .

In GPE and GPE , the right of an accused to be present in court at his trial is a matter of common law . The general rule was stated by Lord Reading CJ in NORP v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL Kings Bench Reports CARDINAL , at CARDINAL , as follows :

" There must be very exceptional circumstances to justify proceeding with the trial in the absence of the accused . The reason why the accused should be present at the trial is that he may hear the case made against him and have the opportunity ... of answering it . The presence of the accused means not only that he must be physically in attendance , but also that he must be capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings . "

A trial judge may , if he considers that the accused in the dock may intimidate a witness , remove the accused from the presence of the witness , though not out of hearing ( NORP v. Smellie ( DATE ) CARDINAL Criminal Appeal Reports CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON , GPE .

On DATE ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) awarded the applicant ORG against the “ GPE ” coal mine ( a ORG - owned enterprise , hereafter “ the Coal Mine ” ) in salary arrears . The judgment became final and was sent to ORG ( hereafter “ the Bailiffs’ Service ” ) for compulsory enforcement .

NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG in respect of its alleged inactivity . On DATE ORG rejected this complaint , stating , inter alia , that no fault was attributable to the bailiffs , who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the judgment of DATE and that the non - enforcement of this judgment was caused by ORG lack of funds . ORG also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by a bankruptcy case pending against ORG before ORG , which on DATE prohibited ORG from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of ORG assets . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG ordered the merger of ORG with several others into ORG .

In a letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant about the following impediments to the execution of the judgment given in his favour :

the ruling of ORG of DATE , prohibiting ORG from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of ORG assets ;

the ruling of ORG of DATE , barring any attachment or sale of ORG property ( both bans above were lifted on DATE , when ORG terminated the bankruptcy proceedings against ORG ) ;

the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of ORG - owned enterprises introduced by the DATE Law .

On DATE , following the transfer of ORG funds to ORG , ORG suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the replacement of the debtor in the applicant ’s case . On DATE ORG applied to ORG for a direction to that effect . On DATE ORG ordered that the debtor in the case be replaced by ORG . On DATE the enforcement case was transmitted to ORG .

The sum awarded to the applicant by the judgment of DATE was paid to him in CARDINAL instalments in DATE and DATE .

Some of the relevant domestic law is set out in the judgments of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE ) , of DATE in the case of GPE v. GPE ( GPE DATE ) , and of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .


BORISENKO AND YEREVANYAN BAZALT LTD v. ARMENIA

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

The first applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , ORG , is a private company which was set up in DATE and has its registered office in GPE ( hereafter , the applicant company ) . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

s , may be summarised as follows .

The first applicant is the director of the applicant company . The latter ’s capital was divided in various proportions among CARDINAL stakeholders , including the first applicant and a third person , PERSON

On DATE PERSON passed away .

By the decisions of the applicant company ’s general assembly of CARDINAL DATE and DATE PERSON ’s share in the company ’s capital was found to constitute MONEY and the transfer of this share to PERSON ’s successors was approved .

On DATE CARDINAL PERSON ’s successors instituted proceedings in ORG ( ՀՀ տնտեսական դատարան ) against the applicants and other stakeholders seeking to annul the above decisions , claiming that PERSON ’s share in the applicant company ’s capital amounted to MONEY .

On DATE ORG granted the claim .

On DATE the ORG lawyer lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան ) . In his appeal the lawyer argued that a number of provisions of substantive and procedural law had been violated . As regards the admissibility grounds required under LAW ( ORG ) , the lawyer did not indicate any of those grounds , arguing instead that this provision lacked legal certainty .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to return the applicants’ appeal on the ground that they had not indicated any of the grounds required under LAW ORG .

A copy of this decision was sent to the applicants on DATE .

On DATE amendments were adopted to LAW which entered into force on DATE . As a result of these amendments ORG was entrusted with a new role , namely to ensure the uniform application of the law . The relevant provisions of the amended LAW read as follows :

“ ... The highest judicial instance in GPE , except for matters falling within constitutional jurisdiction , is ORG which is called upon to ensure the uniform application of the law . ... ”

In order to implement the above constitutional amendments , a substantial reform was introduced to the NORP procedural law . As part of this reform substance - based admissibility requirements were introduced in respect of appeals on points of law lodged with ORG . The relevant provisions of the ORG , as amended on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE and in force at the material time , read as follows :

Article CARDINAL : Entry into force of a judgment of ORG

“ CARDINAL . A judgment adopted by ORG following the examination of a case at first instance shall enter into force DATE after delivery .

NORP If an appeal on points of law is lodged against a judgment which has not entered into force , the judgment shall not enter into force until a decision is taken on admitting the appeal by ORG . ... ”

“ Judgments and decisions of ORG can be contested through cassation proceedings ... ”

Article CARDINAL : Review of judicial acts through cassation proceedings

“ CARDINAL . Judgments of ... ORG which have not entered into force can be reviewed through cassation proceedings based on the appeals brought by persons indicated in LAW . ... ”

LAW entitled to bring appeals on points of law

“ CARDINAL . The parties to the proceedings and persons who were not parties to the proceedings but whose rights and obligations were affected by a judgment are entitled to lodge an appeal on points of law against a judgment of ORG which has not entered into force . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Appeals on points of law lodged against judgments of ... ORG which have not entered into force are examined by ORG ( hereafter , ORG ) .

NORP The objective of ORG activity is to ensure the uniform application of the law and its correct interpretation , and to promote the development of the law . ”

“ An appeal on points of law can be lodged on the ground of ... a substantive or a procedural violation of the parties’ rights ... ”

“ ... CARDINAL . An appeal on points of law against a judicial act adopted by ORG on cases examined at first instance can be lodged ... before the entry into force of the judicial act . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . An appeal on points of law must contain ( CARDINAL ) the name of the court to which the appeal is addressed ; ( CARDINAL ) the appellant ’s name ; ( CARDINAL ) the name of the court that has adopted the judgment , the case number , the date on which the judgment was adopted , the names of the parties , and the subject - matter of the dispute ; ( CARDINAL ) the appellant ’s claim , with reference to the laws and other legal acts and specifying which provisions of substantive or procedural law have been violated or wrongly applied ... ; ( CARDINAL ) arguments required by any of the subparagraphs of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of this Code ; [ and ] ( CARDINAL ) a list of documents enclosed with the appeal .

An appeal on points of law shall be signed by the appellant .

A document certifying payment of the ORG fee shall be attached to the appeal . ”

“ CARDINAL . An appeal on points of law shall be returned if it does not comply with the requirements of LAW and paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall admit an appeal on points of law , if ( CARDINAL ) the judicial act to be adopted on the given case by ORG may have a significant impact on the uniform application of the law , or ( CARDINAL ) the contested judicial act contradicts a judicial act previously adopted by ORG , or ( CARDINAL ) a violation of the procedural or the substantive law by the lower court may cause grave consequences , or ( CARDINAL ) there are newly discovered circumstances .

The Court of Cassation sitting as a panel composed of the President of ORG and the judges of the chamber shall decide whether appeals on points of law lodged with ORG comply with the requirements of LAW and paragraph CARDINAL of this article and should be admitted .

An appeal on points of law shall be admitted if CARDINAL of the judges of ORG vote in favour of admitting it . This decision of ORG is not subject to appeal . ... ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG Mr PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE , is a local government officer of GPE and is on extended sick - leave . As a sufferer from haemophilia A , the symptoms of which first appeared in DATE , he has frequently had blood transfusions , and in DATE and DATE numerous blood products were administered to him . On DATE he was diagnosed as having been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) .

ORG On DATE the applicant applied to ORG seeking damages from the ORG on account of his infection .

ORG In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed his action on the ground that he had been shown to be HIV - positive outside the period of the ORG ’s liability for negligent failure to act , which began on DATE , when the ministerial authorities were fully apprised that the blood products prepared from groups of donors in GPE were dangerous .

Concurrently , in DATE , PERSON made an urgent application to the President of the GPE tribunal de grand instance for an interim order that ORG ( " the ORG " ) , an organisation created by the merger of ORG and ORG , should pay him the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of damage sustained .

On DATE the judge ordered an expert opinion to be prepared . In a report of DATE the medical expert concluded that the applicant ’s infection had very probably originated in the blood products supplied by the ORG .

ORG On DATE counsel for the applicant , without informing the court of the claim lodged with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , brought a second action against the ORG for the sum of ORG CARDINAL .

ORG In a judgment of DATE the court held : " The HIV virus contracted by the plaintiff can only have been caused by the massive administration of blood products supplied by the defendant . " The ORG was consequently ordered to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , and the court ruled that its decision should be enforceable immediately .

On DATE the ORG , which had learnt of the compensation paid by the ORG , successfully applied for a stay of execution .

ORG On an appeal by the ORG and a cross - appeal by the applicant , who had joined the ORG to the proceedings by third - party notice , ORG set aside the judgment of the court below and held that Mr GPE ’s application to have the sum increased to FRF CARDINAL was inadmissible . In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE it gave the following reasoning :

" ... section CARDINAL(III ) [ of LAW of DATE - see paragraph CARDINAL below ] lays down that the Fund shall provide full compensation for damage resulting from infection .

While the obligation on the ORG and the one that may arise from the ORG ’s liability have different legal foundations , they have the same purpose , namely full compensation for damage sustained by victims .

Victims who have submitted a claim for compensation to the ORG may also bring legal proceedings to obtain compensation for the damage they have sustained , but once they have accepted the offer made by the ORG , they cease to have an interest enabling them to bring proceedings as they have been fully compensated .

The specific damage caused by infection and compensated for by the ORG is in the nature of pain and suffering , aesthetic damage and loss of amenity , not an economic loss . In the phase during which the victim is HIV - positive it includes the distress caused by reduced life expectancy , uncertainty as to the future , suffering and the fear of suffering , disruption of family and social life and damage relating to intimacy . In the phase after AIDS has developed , it includes suffering , which is greater , aesthetic damage and loss of amenity .

In the instant case Mr GPE is suing the ORG for compensation for this exceptionally serious damage and as he has been fully compensated by the ORG , he can not claim additional compensation . "

ORG On DATE ORG ( Second Civil Division ) dismissed an appeal on points of law by PERSON , who had argued that he had no access to a court for the purposes of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW . It gave the following reasons for its judgment :

" ORG , having found that the damage compensated for by the ORG was the same as that for which compensation was being sought from the ORG and that the acceptance of the offer of compensation for the specific damage resulting from infection that had been made to him by the ORG fully compensated Mr GPE , rightly concluded - on that sole ground and without infringing LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of LAW as the victim had been able to apply to a court to have compensation assessed for his damage - that Mr GPE ’s action was inadmissible as he lacked any interest enabling him to bring proceedings . "

ORG On DATE , while his civil action was being prepared for trial and without acting through his lawyer , the applicant had submitted a claim to ORG and GPE that had been set up by LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He did not inform the Fund of the action he had brought in the GPE tribunal de grande instance .

ORG On DATE the Fund offered him as " HIV - infection compensation " the sum of FRF CARDINAL payable in CARDINAL instalments over DATE , from which ORG CARDINAL paid out by the private CARDINAL solidarity fund in DATE was to be deducted . In addition , the applicant was to receive the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as soon as he developed AIDS ( acquired immunodeficiency syndrome ) . The compensation offer contained the following information :

" At its sitting on DATE ORG decided to make you an offer of compensation corresponding to the whole of your specific damage resulting from infection , that is to say the current and future damage resulting from HIV infection , and thereafter , if applicable , from the symptoms of AIDS .

On the basis of the average compensation awarded to date by the ordinary courts and the administrative courts and of the age at which you have shown that you were infected , the ORG has determined the manner of compensation it is offering you as follows .

If you accept this offer , you should do so by registered letter with recorded delivery ...

Naturally , the award of this compensation does not prevent you from claiming other compensation in respect of pecuniary damage you may sustain or already have sustained , provided , of course , that you can furnish proof of it .

If this offer is not acceptable to you , you may bring legal proceedings in ORG as provided in CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE ... "

ORG Following acceptance of the offer by the applicant on DATE , the ORG sent him an initial instalment of ORG CARDINAL on DATE . II . ORG The compensation scheme

ORG In a report of CARDINAL DATE that he laid before ORG on behalf of ORG , PERSON , MP , indicated that a victim could seek better compensation after accepting an offer from the ORG :

" That the compensation procedure is quite distinct is confirmed by the fact that it is possible for victims or their heirs to continue civil or criminal actions they may have brought in the administrative courts or even to institute them where they did not do so when submitting a claim to the ORG . Compensation by the ORG is therefore not a ` ORG which precludes judicial remedies , unlike the aid granted by the public and private funds set up in DATE , but a compensation scheme based on the concept of risk and independent of any attempt to determine fault .

A victim must , however , inform the ORG and the court of the various actions brought . This provision is necessary because the ORG is subrogated to the victim ’s rights against the person liable for the damage or against those who are , for CARDINAL reason or another , under a duty to provide compensation . "

ORG Following ORG judgment of DATE in the present case , PERSON , MP , proposed an interpretative Act in order to remove the drafting ambiguities which had given rise to that judgment . He considered that the court had interpreted the LAW of DATE in a way that achieved a result opposite to the one sought by the legislature . He consequently invited ORG to amend LAW and particularly to delete in subsection ( III ) of that section the word " full " and insert at the beginning of subsection ( V ) a paragraph worded as follows :

" Acceptance of the compensation offer shall not preclude any concurrent or subsequent court proceedings in respect of the same damage . "

In a report of DATE on Mr ORG ’s bill on behalf of ORG , Family and ORG , Mr Leccia , MP , supported the bill in substance and proposed a new text , adopted by the committee , which read as follows :

There shall be added after subsection ( V ) of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE making miscellaneous social - welfare provisions a new subsection ( V bis ) worded as follows :

‘ Victims who have already been compensated by the date of publication of Law no . ... of ... shall retain , notwithstanding any court decision that has become final , the right to apply to ORG for a fresh assessment of the damage for which they have already been compensated.’

‘ In respect of victims who have not been compensated by the date of publication of Law no . ... of ... , acceptance of the offer of compensation shall entail abandonment of any concurrent or subsequent court proceedings in respect of the same damage . Where a victim applies to ORG to challenge the amount of the offer made him by the Fund , he shall immediately receive from the ORG an advance amounting to CARDINAL of the offer made.’ "

This bill is still being considered by ORG .

ORG In the opinion of CARDINAL DATE that was submitted to the ORG on the bill then before it on behalf of ORG , Senator PERSON wrote , inter alia :

" The bill is a response to an exceptional situation . The arrangements it proposes may be regarded as being likewise exceptional . Independently of the current investigation into the apportionment of liability , including criminal liability , the community must afford the best redress it can for the consequences of such a tragedy .

As indicated in the introduction to this commentary , the intention of those who have framed the bill was to set up a fully independent scheme that could not be interpreted as in any way validating recent trends in the case - law on this matter . Simultaneously , GPE possibility of resorting to the procedures of ordinary law , whether in the civil or administrative courts or in the criminal courts , has been preserved .

However , the bill ’s wording is not fully explicit on this subject , and the text before us is silent as to the possible effects of earlier court decisions on ORG decisions , and also as to the effects of the ORG ’s decisions on subsequent judgments of other courts . The bill does not , for example , make it possible to determine whether or not the ORG ’s decisions imply recognition of liability or a presumption of guilt . Similarly , it does not state whether ORG is bound by earlier decisions of the courts . "

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE making miscellaneous social - welfare provisions set up a special scheme for the compensation of haemophiliacs and transfusion patients who had been infected following injections of blood products . The distinctive feature of the system , which is based on solidarity , is that it enables reparation to be made for the consequences of HIV infection independently of the investigation of liability . Section CARDINAL provides :

" I. Victims of damage resulting from infection with the human immunodeficiency virus caused by transfusion of blood products or injection of blood derivatives carried out within the territory of GPE shall be compensated in the manner set out below .

II . ORG No final settlement clause whereby a victim undertakes not to pursue any proceedings or action against any third party in respect of his infection shall be a bar to the procedure herein provided for .

III . Full compensation for the damage defined in subsection ( I ) shall be provided by a Compensation Fund , having legal personality , presided over by a serving or retired divisional president or judge of ORG and administered by a compensation board .

A council whose members shall include representatives of the associations concerned shall be established to assist the chairman of the ORG .

IV . ORG In their claims for compensation , victims or their heirs shall provide proof of their infection with the human immunodeficiency virus and of the transfusion of blood products or injections of blood derivatives .

Victims or their heirs shall communicate to the ORG all the information in their possession . Within DATE of the receipt of a claim , a period which may be extended at the request of the victim or his heirs , the ORG shall consider whether the conditions for payment of compensation have been fulfilled . It shall investigate the circumstances under which the victim was infected and make any necessary inquiries , which may not be resisted on grounds of professional secrecy .

PERSON The Fund shall be required to make an offer of compensation to any victim referred to in subsection ( I ) within a time - limit laid down by decree , which may not exceed DATE from DATE on which the ORG receives full proof of the damage

ORG . ORG The victim shall inform the Fund of any judicial proceedings pending . If legal proceedings are brought , the victim shall inform the court of his application to the Fund .

VII . ...

ORG . ORG The victim shall not be entitled to take legal action against ORG unless his claim for compensation has been dismissed , no offer has been made to him within the time - limit referred to in the first paragraph of subsection ( V ) , or he has not accepted an offer made to him . Proceedings shall be brought in ORG .

ORG . The Fund shall be subrogated , for an amount no higher than the sums paid out , to the victim ’s rights against the person liable for the damage and against persons required , for whatever reason , to make full or partial reparation for that damage , within the limits of those ORG liabilities . However , the ORG may institute proceedings on the basis of that subrogation only where the damage is attributable to negligence .

The ORG may intervene in proceedings in the criminal courts , even if it does not do so until the appeal stage , where the victim or his heirs have claimed compensation as a civil party in proceedings pending against the person or persons responsible for the damage defined in subsection ( I ) . In such cases it shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and may have recourse to all the remedies available in law .

If the acts which caused the damage have given rise to criminal proceedings , the civil court shall not be required to defer its decision until there has been a final decision by the criminal court .

X. Unless otherwise provided , the provisions governing the implementation of this section shall be laid down in a decree issued after consultation of the ORG d’Etat .

ORG . ORG ...

ORG . The Compensation Fund ’s sources of revenue shall be specified in a subsequent Act .

XIII . ...

ORG . ORG ... "

ORG In CARDINAL judgments of DATE ORG of the ORG d’Etat ruled that " the ORG is wholly liable in respect of persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus following a transfusion of non - heat - treated blood products DATE and DATE " .

ORG At the request of ORG in respect of the PERSON case , on which ORG had to rule ( judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-A ) , the PERSON d’Etat gave its view on the consequences of bringing concurrent proceedings in the administrative courts and before ORG . Sitting in its judicial capacity on DATE , it gave the following opinion :

" CARDINAL . ORG The decree of DATE ... , which is applicable to cases pending at the date of its publication , ... provides a solution to the problem raised [ by ORG ] .

ORG ... An administrative court asked to make such an award should raise of its own motion the fact that the damage complained of has already been wholly or partly indemnified by a third party , when the evidence shows this to be the case , even if that party does not file submissions - on the basis of its subrogation to the rights of the victim - seeking reimbursement of the amounts it has paid as compensation for the damage suffered by the latter .

Accordingly , an administrative court to which a claim for compensation for damage suffered as a result of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus has been submitted must , when it has been informed by CARDINAL of the parties that the victim or his heirs have already received compensation for the damage complained of , deduct of its own motion such compensation from the amount payable in respect of the damage .

Where the sum offered by the ORG has been accepted by the claimants , ... it should be held that all or part of the damage complained of has been actually and finally compensated for by the ORG . Consequently , it is incumbent on an administrative court which has been informed that this is the case to deduct , of its own motion , the amount thus owed by the ORG from the compensation which it orders the public authority liable for the damage to pay to the victim . "

Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE adds ORG CARDINAL to Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on proceedings brought in ORG under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It applies to all proceedings pending at the date of its publication , DATE .

Provisions relating to actions seeking to establish liability brought against those responsible for the damage defined in subsection ( I ) of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW DATE

In order to bring the action by subrogation provided for in subsection ( ORG ) of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW DATE , the ORG may intervene in proceedings in any of the administrative or ordinary courts , even if it does not do so until the appeal stage . In such cases it shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and may have recourse to all the remedies available in law .

The registries of the administrative and ordinary courts shall send the ORG by registered post with recorded delivery a copy of the procedural documents submitting to those courts any initial or additional claim for compensation of the damage defined in subsection ( I ) of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW DATE .

Within DATE of receipt of the letter referred to in LAW , the ORG shall inform the president of the relevant court by ordinary mail whether or not it has received a claim for compensation with the same purpose and , if so , what stage the procedure has reached . It shall also state whether or not it intends to intervene in the proceedings .

Where the victim has accepted the offer made by ORG , the latter shall send the president of the court a copy of the documents in which the offer was made and by which it was accepted . The Fund shall , where relevant , indicate the stage reached in proceedings instituted in ORG under the provisions of Part I of this decree and forward any judgment delivered by that court .

The registry shall notify the parties of the information communicated by the ORG .

The registry shall send the ORG copies of the decisions given at first instance and , where relevant , on appeal in proceedings in which the ORG has not intervened .

The provisions of ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL shall be applicable to cases pending on the date of entry into force of [ this ] decree ... "


The applicants , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

It is to be noted that PERSON did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting his ownership of the property in GPE .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE and GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to ORG where they currently live . Following the evacuation of their villages , the applicants filed petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their houses by security forces . However , ORG did not commence an investigation into the ORG allegations .

On unspecified dates , the applicants filed petitions with the offices of the Governor of the state - of - emergency region , the ORG Governor , the FAC Governor , ORG , the military authorities in the region and the President of the Republic and requested permission to return to their village . They further requested , as an alternative to permission to return , that they be allowed to cultivate their lands . The administrative authorities sent a reply to the mayor of GPE and rejected his request of permission to return to his village .

It is to be noted that the applicants failed to submit a copy of these petitions to the ORG .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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