Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant was granted leave to represent himself and to use the NORP language in the proceedings before ORG Rule CARDINAL § § DATE ( a ) ) . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented successively by their Agent , Mr Răzvan - Horaţiu Radu , and their co - Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

On DATE a committee of CARDINAL judges of the ORG decided , pursuant to LAW ( a ) of the LAW , to strike the application out of the ORG ’s list of cases in accordance with LAW ( a ) of the LAW . On DATE , following a request received from the applicant , the same committee decided to restore the application to the ORG ’s list of cases by virtue of LAW .

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

By a prosecutor ’s order of DATE the applicant was detained at the ORG pending trial on murder charges .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment on the basis of forensic , documentary and testimonial evidence , including the testimony of GPE and GPE

The applicant remains in detention to date .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s medical condition was reviewed regularly by prison and civil hospitals and he received treatment for , inter alia , an antisocial personality disorder , epilepsy , syphilis , scabies , repeated headaches , diabetes , stomatological problems , hernia , obstructive chronic bronchitis , tuberculosis , arterial hypertension , varicose veins in his feet , chronic gastritis , and an old fracture of the left tibia following a gunshot wound received before DATE . It was recommended that he follow a diet for the chronic gastritis and diabetes , and avoid cold , damp and infections , and extended orthostatism . None of the medical reports produced during this period mentioned any injuries on the applicant ’s body .

In his letters of DATE and DATE concerning PERSON , and in his letter of CARDINAL DATE regarding PERSON , the applicant stated that the conditions of detention in those penitentiaries amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment because the CARDINAL prisons were overcrowded and infested with parasites , the food and the general hygiene conditions were poor , he was refused a special diet for his diabetes , and he did not have access to appropriate bathroom or washing facilities .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action against FAC authorities for an injunction allowing him to access his medical file , on the ground that he had received a complete copy of his medical file , from which none of the documents had been missing .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s criminal complaint claiming abuse of power on the part of GPE – one of the prosecutors who had investigated the murder charge against him DATE on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed , on the basis of documentary , testimonial and medical evidence , the applicant ’s action for ill - treatment against GPE , GPE and GPE , all employees of FAC , on the ground that there was no proof in the file attesting that the applicant had been ill - treated by those individuals .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the order of ORG of DATE refusing to indict the masked guards in PERSON who had allegedly beaten the applicant on DATE , on the ground that it was time - barred .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action to obtain an injunction in order to be heard by a pensions commission . The court held that the applicant had made CARDINAL requests for copies of documents from his prison file which had all been approved by the prison authorities , and that he had been provided with the requested copies . Moreover , the prison authorities had approved the applicant ’s requests to be heard by a pensions commission and to be provided with the relevant information for his pension file . He had been taken twice to the FAC and GPE District CARDINAL ORG and he had been provided with the requested information .

In the large majority of his letters addressed to the ORG DATE the applicant repeatedly referred to the NORP President , the Members of ORG , the prison guards in all the prisons he was detained in , and the judges and prosecutors who examined and investigated his cases and complaints , as “ communists ” , “ ORG members ” , “ members of the former ORG ( securişti ) ” , “ terrorists , executioners , murderers and accomplices to ill - treatment ” .

In his letters of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE , as well as on an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant accused members of ORG , some of the judges and ORG being “ ORG members ” , of “ plotting together with the terrorist LOC ” , and of “ being accomplices of members of the former ORG ( securişti ) ” .

On DATE the Government submitted their observations to the ORG and argued , inter alia , that the language used by the applicant amounted to an abuse of the right of application and that his application should be dismissed .

In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated , inter alia , that he believed the ORG had made a “ genocide pact ” with the “ murderers ” who hid behind the name of leaders of a rule - of - law ORG like GPE , because it had failed to examine his case . Moreover , he claimed that members of ORG and certain judges had contributed to his physical and mental torture .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE containing the applicant ’s observations in reply to those of the Government , the applicant stated that the “ brutish ” NORP prison authorities had attempted to lie to the ORG by sending false information about his detention conditions , and he asked the ORG to inform ORG that he was a liar . Moreover , he submitted that :

“ ... by the false documents submitted to ORG ... ORG falsified the actual reality and lied ... ORG is a liar . ”

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant called the Government Agents “ brutish ” and “ buffoons ” and stated that , together with ORG , they constantly misinformed the ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Government reiterated their request for ORG to dismiss the applicant ’s case as an abuse of the right of application . They stated that the applicant continued to submit inappropriate letters using offensive language and making defamatory allegations concerning the activities of the NORP authorities .


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

On DATE the applicant was arrested for homicide . On DATE he appeared before the first instance criminal court of GPE , composed of judges and jurors ( Μικτό PERSON ) . On DATE he was found guilty and given a life sentence . The applicant appealed on DATE .

On DATE there was a fire in the public prosecutor ’s office and the case - file was destroyed . It was reconstituted at DATE .

On DATE ORG , composed of judges and jurors ( ORG ) , adjourned the examination of his appeal until DATE because a number of key prosecution witnesses were not present .

On DATE the examination of the appeal was further adjourned because the applicant ’s lawyer was on strike .

The appeal was heard on DATE and ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction and sentence . On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer applied for an adjournment of the hearing before ORG because he needed more time to prepare the case . The court acceded to his request . On DATE there was another adjournment because the applicant ’s lawyer was on strike . A further adjournment was ordered on the same ground on CARDINAL DATE . The appeal in cassation was finally heard on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the decision of ORG on the ground that it did not contain proper reasons . The case was sent back to ORG for re - examination .

On DATE the applicant asked for his appeal not to be heard in GPE on public order and safety grounds . His request was unsuccessful .

On DATE ORG adjourned the hearing of the case because the applicant ’s lawyer was on strike . On CARDINAL DATE the case was adjourned again because key prosecution witnesses were absent .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of homicide , considered that there existed no mitigating circumstances and imposed on him a sentence of life imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation once more . He claimed , inter alia , that he had pleaded before ORG that his sentence should be reduced because of the length of the proceedings but the court had tacitly rejected this plea .

On DATE the applicant submitted an additional memorial to the effect that ORG should have reduced his sentence proprio motu because of the length of the proceedings . He invoked in this connection Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention .

The applicant ’s appeal was heard by ORG on DATE and was rejected on DATE .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of ORG , in LOC of GPE .

The applicant was married to PERSON , born in DATE . The couple were the parents of CARDINAL children : Mr PERSON , born in DATE ; PERSON Damayeva , born in DATE ; ORG , born in DATE ; Mr PERSON , born in DATE ; PERSON , born in DATE ; and PERSON , born in DATE .

On DATE the applicant went to a cemetery located outside the village of ORG . PERSON was at school . The applicant ’s wife and CARDINAL younger children were at home .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL military aircraft approached the village of ORG and started bombing it . The attack lasted for TIME . At CARDINAL or TIME CARDINAL other military aircraft bombed the outskirts of the village .

The applicant heard the sound of explosions while he was at the cemetery . He rushed back to the village . On arrival he saw that his house had been completely destroyed . The applicant then found the dead bodies of his wife and CARDINAL children . PERSON , who had not been at home at the time of the aerial attack , survived .

DATE the applicant ’s CARDINAL dead family members were buried .

In DATE Mr M. built a house in the village of ORG without obtaining any construction permit . He did not register his title to ownership of the house .

In DATE Mr M. left his house and the PERSON family unlawfully moved into it .

In DATE a ORG agency in charge of the counterterrorism campaign in GPE obtained information that a group of CARDINAL insurgents planning to perform terrorist attacks had been hiding in the vicinity of the villages of NORP and Tersenaul . Both villages were unpopulated at that time .

NORP In order to protect the civilian population and in view of the impossibility of carrying out military ground operations in the area , the headquarters in charge of the counter - terrorism campaign decided to carry out targeted aerial bombing of the insurgents’ base .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL SU-CARDINAL airplanes fired missiles at the location of the insurgents’ base . The insurgents were killed .

NORP Inhabited villages and dwellings , including the house occupied by the GPE , were not hit by the missiles .

On DATE an artillery shell kept in the applicant ’s house detonated . The applicant ’s wife and CARDINAL children were killed by the explosion .

On DATE residents of ORG reported the bombings and the applicant ’s relatives’ deaths to the office of the military commander for LOC .

On DATE the applicant complained about his relatives’ deaths to the GPE ORG of the Interior .

At TIME on DATE a group of servicemen visited the village . They did not identify themselves ; however , CARDINAL serviceman said that he belonged to a military prosecutor ’s office . The servicemen told the applicant that , according to their sources , there had been an attack on rebel fighters in the ORG area . They also said that there were no grounds for instituting a criminal investigation , as the house had exploded because of a gas cylinder or a landmine . The servicemen examined the ruins of the applicant ’s house . The applicant requested that his relatives’ bodies be exhumed . The servicemen replied that they had no forensic expert with them and promised to carry out an exhumation later .

On DATE a ORG employee arrived in PERSON and filmed the scene of incident . The residents of PERSON searched the ruins of the applicant ’s house and found a fragment of a numbered bomb in a shell hole . They also disinterred the bodies of the applicant ’s relatives and the ORG employee filmed them . That same day the villagers saw another aircraft flying in the NORP area .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested that the prosecutor ’s office of the GPE institute criminal proceedings in relation to his relatives’ deaths and to grant him victim status .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother , Mr PERSON , requested that ORG inform him of the progress of the investigation into the deaths in PERSON . He received no reply .

On DATE the applicant ’s representatives asked the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( “ the ORG prosecutor ’s office ” ) to provide them with information on the progress of the investigation into the deaths of the applicant ’s relatives .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office received a phone call from the Prime Minister of GPE , informing them that at TIME on DATE PERSON and her CARDINAL children had been killed as a result of an aerial bombardment .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office ’s officials inspected the scene of the incident . According to the inspection report drawn up on DATE , there was a demolished stone building with no roof . CARDINAL wall of the building was completely demolished , CARDINAL were partially destroyed and CARDINAL wall remained intact . Among the debris of the building there were CARDINAL pillows , a blanket and metal kitchenware . There also were CARDINAL consumer gas cylinders , CARDINAL of which had a hole in it . The investigators took samples of the soil and collected metal fragments . There were also utility structures next to the building , some of them unfinished . In CARDINAL of those there was a horse standing . In another CARDINAL cartridges of QUANTITY calibre were found hidden in a plastic bottle . In CARDINAL structure the investigators found CARDINAL blank cartridges of CARDINAL PERSON calibre . There was a cattle stable which was not damaged . There was a shell hole located within the distance of DATE kilometres from the building .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation in case no . DATE under LAW of LAW Criminal Code ( manslaughter ) .

The investigators questioned the applicant and CARDINAL other people , PERSON . and PERSON , as witnesses .

On DATE the scene of incident was again inspected in the presence of Mr PERSON . According to the additional inspection report , in front of the demolished building ’s façade there was a cone - shaped hole QUANTITY long , QUANTITY wide and QUANTITY deep . The distance from the centre of the hole to the foundation of the façade wall was QUANTITY . PERSON explained that the hole had been a shell hole left on DATE . The investigators found CARDINAL metal fragments in the hole and CARDINAL fragments around the building . There was a metal fragment found QUANTITY from the epicentre of the hole . According to a specialist , it was a fragment of an artillery shell ’s stabiliser . PERSON explained that his brother had brought that fragment home long before DATE . The investigators also found CARDINAL other shell holes within DATE , CARDINAL and QUANTITY from the epicentre of the first hole , respectively . In each of those holes there were metal fragments .

On unspecified dates expert explosive , aviation and forensic examinations were carried out .

The examination of the explosion established that the shell hole at the site of the NORP house had emerged as the result of an explosion of an artillery shrapnel fougasse shell ( « артиллерийский осколочно-фугасный снаряд PERSON ) , a type of a shell that is smaller than a generalpurpose bomb ( « авиационная бомба ORG ) . The results of the explosion did not correspond to those of a general - purpose bomb explosion . The fragments of the shell found at the scene of the incident had not been fired from a cannon barrel , which proved that the shell had detonated because of its heating by an external object . Gas cylinders and a burner had been found at the scene of the incident , which corresponded with the hypothesis of the shell having been subjected to an external impact .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office exhumed the bodies of the applicant ’s family members .

The forensic examination established that the deaths of ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had been caused by bodily injuries inflicted as a result of the house collapsing , by their respiratory tracts becoming blocked by loose soil or by crushing of their bodies because of the weight of solid objects . There was no data showing that the injuries could have been caused by an explosion . It was impossible to establish the exact time and causes of their deaths , owing to their relatives’ refusal to authorise an autopsy .

The clothing of the dead persons was undamaged , which proved that their deaths had not been caused by the detonation of a generalpurpose bomb .

The aviation expert report established that the pilots who had carried out the aerial attack and the officials in charge of its planning had not breached any rules or regulations .

The investigation established that the decision by the military superiors to bomb the area had been lawful and well - founded . The pilots who had performed the task had not violated any laws . The NORP house had been destroyed because of an explosion , which had been caused by the victims , of an artillery shell that had been kept inside the house . There had been no causal link between the actions of the pilots and the NORP deaths .

On DATE the investigation was closed for lack of evidence of a crime in the actions of the servicemen .

Despite specific requests from ORG , the Government refrained from disclosing the documents in the investigation file , except for a record of an inspection of the scene of the incident dated DATE and a record of an additional inspection of the scene of the incident dated DATE . The record of DATE included a number of photographs presumably showing the remains of the applicant ’s house . However , the poor quality of the faxed photographs did not allow for study of the scene of the incident or for identification of the objects shown in them . Relying on information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated that disclosure of the information collected in the course of the preliminary investigation would breach the rights of the parties to the criminal proceedings and thus violate LAW .

For a summary of relevant domestic law see ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , QUANTITY and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Kursk .

In the period DATE the applicant , in a series of telephone conversations with PERSON , agreed that he would supply her with cannabis which she would then sell . These telephone conversations were recorded by ORG ( “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE S. brought the cannabis to the applicant . She mixed it with cannabis she already had at home and packed it into CARDINAL separate plastic bags , then wrapped them together in CARDINAL parcel .

On DATE the acting chief of ORG of the ORG authorised an undercover operation in the form of a test purchase under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . On DATE an undercover ORG agent , PERSON , acting as a buyer , met the applicant and purchased CARDINAL g of cannabis from her . Banknotes marked with a special substance were used for the purchase . The ORG also made a video and audio recording of the test purchase . After the transaction the applicant was arrested and the marked money was found on her . Her home was searched afterwards , and there she handed in another bag of cannabis weighing CARDINAL g.

On DATE ORG of Kursk examined the case . The applicant pleaded guilty of having assisted B. in the acquisition of cannabis , but claimed that she had been induced by PERSON to commit the offence and that she would not have committed it without his intervention .

The applicant submitted at the trial that she had a close relationship with S. On CARDINAL occasion in DATE he had left a bag containing dry herb at her home . She had then shown the substance to a neighbour who she knew was a drug addict and he had recognised it as cannabis . DATE she had been approached by a certain PERSON , previously unknown to her , who had said that he knew that she had “ stuff ” and that he could arrange a large - scale deal ( “ CARDINAL cups ” ) with a customer he knew . She had mentioned this offer to S. , who had told her that he could pick up the requisite amount and asked her to find out the price . According to the applicant , at some stage PERSON had started calling her , harassing her into selling cannabis and making threats should she refuse to do so . She had called PERSON several times before DATE , when he had finally brought the cannabis to her . On DATE she had received a phone call from the “ customer ” ( the undercover agent PERSON ) and they had arranged for the sale .

S. testified at the trial that the applicant had called him in DATE or DATE and suggested a deal whereby he would supply her with a “ large consignment ” of cannabis which she would then sell . In DATE he had picked up some wild marijuana plants and dried them in his attic . On CARDINAL or DATE the applicant had called him , asking whether he had prepared the consignment , and said that she had customers waiting . They had decided to sell the cannabis at MONEY per cup ; according to S. , the price was suggested by the applicant . S. also testified that the applicant had told him that she had received threats pressuring her into selling the cannabis .

Other evidence examined by the court included :

– witness testimonies by PERSON , the undercover agent , and PERSON , the ORG agent who took part in the test purchase , on the events of DATE : the details of the test purchase , the applicant ’s arrest and the ensuing investigative measures ;

– witness testimonies by ORG . and PERSON . , the attesting witnesses , concerning the applicant ’s arrest on DATE and the inspection of the marking agent found on her hands and banknotes ;

– the ORG reports relating to the test purchase , the search and the objects seized ;

– forensic evidence and reports on the inspection of the seized substance ; these confirmed that the bag contained CARDINAL g of cannabis , an amount corresponding to CARDINAL average doses of cannabis ; the substance seized at the applicant ’s home was QUANTITY of cannabis ;

– the transcripts and the related reports on the telephone conversations between the applicant and PERSON in which they had discussed the details of the planned sale ;

– witness testimonies by the applicant ’s mother that the applicant had received threats pressuring her into selling drugs and that she had continued to receive calls and threats after her arrest ; and

– witness testimonies by the police officers who had received a complaint from the applicant ’s mother concerning the harassment by telephone .

On the basis of the above evidence , the court found the applicant guilty of having sold cannabis to B. on DATE . As regards the alleged incitement , the court considered that S. ’s testimonies concerning the threats received by the applicant were an attempt to help her and decided that there was insufficient evidence of any threats or pressure on the applicant to sell drugs . The court convicted the applicant on a conspiracy charge involving plans to sell a particularly large consignment of narcotic drugs under LAW ( статья CARDINAL ч CARDINAL « г GPE ) of LAW and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment . The court relied on the applicant ’s partial confession , oral testimonies by the ORG officers who had conducted the test purchase and by attesting witnesses , forensic evidence and reports on the inspection of the seized substance . Her accomplice PERSON was also convicted of the same offence .

The applicant appealed , relying , inter alia , on the decisive role of the incitement in her committing the crime and on her inability to access the evidence from the investigation . She alleged , in particular , that there existed recordings of her telephone conversations with the ORG agents prior to the test purchase and asked for ORG , the ORG agent supposedly involved in the telephone tapping , to be called as a witness . She also complained that the court had not examined the video and audio recording of the test purchase .

On DATE the Kursk ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court rejected the applicant ’s argument concerning the incitement by ORG agents on the grounds that her participation in the drug sale on DATE had been established on the basis of multiple items of evidence and was not denied by her . The appeal court upheld the firstinstance judgment , holding , in particular :

“ As regards the arguments [ contained in the applicant ’s appeal ] concerning the unfounded dismissal of [ her ] request to obtain the audio recordings of the telephone conversations between [ her ] and the ORG agents , and to cross - examine the ORG agent [ T. ] on that point , the case file contains no proof that any such recordings have been made under a procedure established by law .

As regards the arguments [ contained in the applicant ’s appeal ] concerning the unfounded dismissal of [ her ] request to obtain the video and audio recordings of the test purchase of the drugs by the ORG agents , it is not necessary to examine them since [ the applicant ] accepted in her pleadings that she had sold the drugs during such a test purchase , and her account of the circumstances is corroborated by other evidence and facts established by the court .

In particular , it follows from the transcripts of the [ applicant ’s ] telephone conversations with [ S. ] that during these conversations they discussed occasions of previous sales of narcotic drugs , the remaining unsold stock of narcotic drugs , the emergence of new customers and the prospects of carrying out another sale together ... PERSON was conveying information on prices for narcotic drugs ” .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( as in force at the material time ) provided that the unlawful sale of narcotic drugs or psychotropic , strong or toxic substances carried a sentence of DATE imprisonment ; the same offence involving a large quantity of drugs or committed by a group of persons acting in conspiracy carried a sentence of up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ; the same offence involving a particularly large quantity of drugs carried a sentence of up to DATE imprisonment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( d ) ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE adopted guidelines ( Ruling No . DATE ) on jurisprudence in criminal cases involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic , strong or toxic substances . The Plenary ruled , in particular , that any sale of such substances , if carried out in connection with a test purchase under LAW , should carry charges of attempted sale ( LAW in conjunction with LAW ) . It also set out the following conditions on which the results of the test purchase could be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings : ( i ) they must have been obtained in accordance with the law ; ( ii ) they must demonstrate that the defendant ’s intention to engage in trafficking of illegal substances had developed independently of the undercover GPE acts ; and ( iii ) they must demonstrate that the defendant had carried out all the preparatory steps necessary for the commission of the offence .

The Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . ORG ) provided at the material time as follows :

“ An operational - search activity is a form of overt or covert activity carried out by operational divisions of ORG agencies authorised by this LAW ( hereinafter ‘ agencies conducting operational - search GPE ) within the scope of their powers , with a view to protecting life , health , the rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens or property , and ensuring public and ORG security against criminal offences . ”

“ The aims of operational - search activities are :

– to detect , prevent , intercept and investigate criminal offences as well as searching for and establishing the persons who are planning or committing or have committed them ;

A person who considers that an agency conducting operational - search activities has acted in breach of his or her rights and freedoms may challenge the acts of that agency before a superior agency conducting operational - search activities , a prosecutor ’s office or a court .

“ In carrying out investigations the following measures may be taken :

NORP test purchase ;

NORP supervision of postal , telegraphic and other communications ;

telephone interception ;

collection of data from technical channels of communication ;

operational infiltration ;

controlled supply ;

operational experiments .

Operational - search activities involving supervision of postal , telegraphic and other communications , telephone interception through [ telecommunications companies ] , and the collection of data from technical channels of communication are to be carried out by technical means by ORG , the agencies of ORG and the regulatory agencies for drugs and psychotropic substances in accordance with decisions and agreements signed between the agencies involved .

“ [ Operational - search activities may be performed on the following grounds ; ] ...

NORP pending criminal proceedings ;

NORP information obtained by the agencies conducting operational - search activities which :

( CARDINAL ) indicates that an offence is being planned or that it has been already committed , or points to persons who are planning or committing or have committed it , if there are insufficient data for a decision to institute criminal proceedings ;

“ Operational - search activities involving interference with the constitutional right to privacy of postal , telegraphic and other communications transmitted by means of wire or mail services , or with the privacy of the home , may be conducted , subject to a judicial decision , following the receipt of information concerning :

NORP the appearance that an offence has been committed or is ongoing , or a conspiracy to commit an offence whose investigation is mandatory ;

NORP persons who are conspiring to commit , or are committing , or have committed an offence whose investigation is mandatory ;

Test purchases ... , operational experiments , or infiltration by agents of the agencies conducting operational - search activities or individuals assisting them , shall be carried out pursuant to an order issued by the head of the agency conducting ORG activities .

Operational experiments may be conducted only for the detection , prevention , interruption and investigation of a serious crime , or for the identification of persons who are planning or committing or have committed a serious crime .

“ The examination of requests for the taking of measures involving interference with the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence and telephone , postal , telegraphic and other communications transmitted by means of wire or mail services , or with the right to privacy of the home , shall fall within the competence of a court at the place where the requested measure is to be carried out or at the place where the requesting body is located . The request must be examined immediately by a single judge ; the examination of the request may not be refused .

The judge examining the request shall decide whether to authorise measures involving interference with the above - mentioned constitutional right , or to refuse authorisation , indicating reasons .

“ To pursue their aims as defined by this LAW , the agencies conducting ORG activities may create and use databases and open operational registration files .

Operational registration files may be opened on the grounds set out in points CARDINAL to CARDINAL of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW ... ”

“ Information gathered as a result of operational - search activities may be used for the preparation and conduct of the investigation and court proceedings ... and used as evidence in criminal proceedings in accordance with legal provisions regulating the collection , evaluation and assessment of evidence . ... ”

On DATE section CARDINAL of the Act was amended by prohibiting the agency conducting operational - search activities from directly or indirectly inducing or inciting the commission of offences .

ORG instruments on the use of special investigative techniques are outlined in PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL- ... ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE , in force from DATE , provided at the material time that orders of an interrogator , investigator or prosecutor that were capable of encroaching on the constitutional rights and freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings or obstructing their access to justice could be challenged before a court whose jurisdiction covered the place of the investigation . Subsequent changes in the Code added the head of the investigating authority to the list of officials whose acts could be challenged .

On DATE ORG of GPE adopted guidelines ( Ruling No . CARDINAL ) on the practice of judicial examination of complaints under LAW . The Plenary ruled , inter alia , that decisions by the officials of agencies conducting operational - search activities must also be subject to judicial review under the provisions of LAW if the officials were acting pursuant to an order by an investigator or the head of the investigating or interrogating authority .

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Evidence obtained in breach of this Code shall be inadmissible . Inadmissible evidence shall have no legal force and can not be relied on as grounds for criminal charges or for proving any of the [ circumstances for which evidence is required in criminal proceedings ] .

ORG If a court decides to exclude evidence , that evidence shall have no legal force and can not be relied on in a judgment or other judicial decision , or be examined or used during the trial .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in NORP . She is represented before the ORG by Mr I. K. Yıldırım and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG and Highways expropriated a part of a plot of land ( plot no . CARDINAL ) belonging to the applicant in GPE . A committee of experts had assessed the value of the land and an amount of compensation was paid to the applicant at the time of the expropriation .

On DATE the applicant filed a case with ORG and requested additional compensation .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) plus interest at the statutory rate , running from DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court .

The applicant commenced enforcement proceedings . On DATE the administration paid the applicant the amount of TRL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) covering additional compensation and interest , as well as costs and expenses .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the Gül and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in GPE in order to build ORG . The authorities paid him the value of the land , assessed by a committee of experts , when the expropriation took place .

Following the applicant ’s request , on DATE ORG awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE the amount of MONEY ( TRL ) was paid to the applicant .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of ORG v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-IV , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of her application to the Court , she was incarcerated in the Kartal Special Type Prison .

On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , the Dev - Sol ( Devrimci Sol – Revolutionary Left ) .

On DATE the applicant was detained on remand .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and charged her with membership of an illegal organisation under LAW .

On DATE ORG of ORG held the first hearing in the case ( case no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the first - instance court ordered the applicant ’s release pending trial . However , the applicant was not released since on DATE the public prosecutor at ORG had filed a new bill of indictment which resulted in a second case against the applicant before ORG of ORG ( case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under LAW .

On DATE these CARDINAL cases were joined under case no . CARDINAL before ORG of ORG .

The applicant requested to be released pending trial at various times before the trial courts . The courts dismissed her requests either without giving any reason or having regard to the nature of the offence , the content of the case file and the state of evidence .

NORP On DATE ORG of ORG once again dismissed the applicant ’s request for release pending trial .

On DATE the applicant filed an objection against the decision of DATE .

On DATE FAC of ORG dismissed her request .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , state security courts were abolished . The case against the applicant was thereby transferred to ORG . According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties , the case is still pending before ORG .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in PERSON and GPE v. GPE , ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


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

Mr PERSON , an agricultural engineer , is a NORP citizen . He lives at GPE , GPE .

The applicant and his wife own land in the municipality of PERSON , on which there is a gravel pit . They held a permit to extract gravel from the pit from DATE until DATE , when the permit was revoked ; it had previously been extended on the understanding that the activities in question would be terminated and restoration work carried out on the land by DATE .

The revocation of the permit , and the lack of a court remedy against this and a related measure , gave rise to an earlier case before the ORG , which held in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL ) that there had been a violation of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , but not of LAW No . CARDINAL ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) taken either alone or in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

Following the revocation on DATE , the applicant applied to ORG ( länsstyrelsen ) for a special extraction permit , so that he could comply with a plan adopted by ORG on DATE for the restoration of the pit . The application was dismissed by ORG on DATE and an appeal by the applicant against this decision was rejected by ORG ( ORG ) on DATE .

The applicant , seeking the annulment of the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , applied to ORG ( regeringsrätten ) for review under LAW ( lagen om rättsprövning av vissa förvaltningsbeslut GPE - " LAW " ) . He alleged that , by denying him a special extraction permit , the competent authorities had prevented him from taking measures to comply with the restoration plan ; the refusal contravened the principle of objectivity enshrined in LAW , section CARDINAL , of ORG ( regeringsformen , which forms part of the LAW ) . Moreover , contrary to the principle of proportionality and section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( naturvårdslagen DATE ) , the authorities had gone beyond what was necessary in the interests of nature conservation , as well as other public and private interests . Their decision was also incompatible with the aim of nature conservation laid down in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act . Finally , the only reply given by ORG to his question as to what steps he should take had been that the time - limit for restoration of the pit had expired ; he had thus been the victim of a denial of justice .

In addition , the applicant asked ORG to hold an oral hearing in his case .

In a decision ( beslut ) of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , sitting with CARDINAL judges , dismissed the latter request by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , finding that there were no grounds under section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( förvaltningsprocesslagen CARDINAL:CARDINAL ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for holding a hearing . As to the merits , on the basis of written observations submitted by the applicant and ORG , it concluded unanimously that the ORG ’s decision was not unlawful and confirmed it .

According to TIME of deliberations on DATE , the CARDINAL judges who were in favour of a hearing had regard in particular to the fact that LAW had been enacted in order to ensure that NORP law complied with LAW and also with ORG case - law in this area ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They noted moreover that certain essential points of PERSON case remained unclear , since there was disagreement between him and ORG as to whether the above - mentioned restoration plan ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) required the further extraction of gravel from the pit or simply the moving of gravel within it . In addition they drew attention to the lack of clarity in PERSON plea against the Government .

The same CARDINAL judges considered that the Government , like the applicant and ORG , should have submitted written observations on the case ; apart from their reasons for rejecting the applicant ’s appeal , they should have given their views on the above - mentioned issue of the need for further extraction of gravel and on whether their decision meant that PERSON had been prevented from restoring the pit in the prescribed manner after DATE .

It was not possible under NORP law for the applicant to appeal from ORG decision of DATE .

LAW was introduced as a result of ORG findings in several cases , notably against GPE , that lack of judicial review of certain administrative decisions infringed LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention ( see , for instance , the GPE and PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . DATE , paras . DATE ; the ORG v. GPE and the ORG v. GPE judgments of CARDINAL DATE , respectively Series A no . CARDINAL-A , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL , and Series A no . PERSON , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . It was enacted as a temporary law to remain in force until DATE ; its validity was subsequently extended to DATE .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of this Act , a person who has been a party to administrative proceedings before the ORG or another public authority may , in the absence of any other remedy , apply to ORG , as the first and only judicial instance , for review of any decisions in the case which involve the exercise of public authority vis - à - vis a private individual . The kind of administrative decision covered by the LAW is further defined in LAW , sections CARDINAL of ORG , to which section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . LAW specifies several types of decisions which fall outside its scope , none of which is relevant in the instant case .

In proceedings brought under LAW , ORG examines whether the contested decision " conflicts with any legal rule " ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) . According to the preparatory work to the LAW , as reproduced in Government PERSON ( pp . DATE ) , its review of the merits of cases concerns essentially questions of law but may , in so far as is relevant for the application of the law , extend also to factual issues ; it must also consider whether there are any procedural errors which may have affected the outcome of the case .

If ORG finds that the impugned decision is unlawful , it must quash it and , where necessary , refer the case back to the relevant administrative authority ( section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , as applicable at the relevant time ) .

The procedure before ORG is governed by LAW DATE . It is in principle a written procedure , but ORG may decide to hold an oral hearing on specific matters if this is likely to assist it in its examination of the case or to expedite the proceedings ( section CARDINAL ) .


Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Just satisfaction reserved

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

The applicant was an employee of a glass factory in GPE . On DATE the factory granted the applicant and his family a flat for their use in GPE , consisting of a kitchen , CARDINAL room and a communal toilet and measuring QUANTITY .

On DATE ORG enacted ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) , which regulated the sale of publicly - owned flats previously let under protected tenancies , giving the right to holders of such tenancies of publicly - owned flats to purchase them from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions .

Under that LAW the applicant as the buyer and GPE as the seller concluded a contract for the sale of the said flat on DATE . A copy of the contract was submitted for approval by the ORG Attorney 's ORG . On DATE approval was given .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON GPE ) recorded the applicant 's ownership of the flat in the court 's land register . A copy of this decision was sent for information to the GPE State Attorney 's ORG in GPE ( PERSON pravobraniteljstvo ORG županije u GPE ) .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney 's ORG brought a civil action against the applicant and GPE in ORG , seeking annulment of the sale contract in question . They argued that the applicant could not have obtained a protected tenancy of the flat because the glass factory where he had worked had had no right to dispose of the said flat and that such a right had been vested in GPE alone . ORG accepted these arguments and in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE annulled the sale contract . The judgment was upheld by ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) on DATE . The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows :

“ The ORG decision of DATE , granting the first plaintiff PERSON the right to use a flat in GPE at QUANTITY Street , , consisting of CARDINAL room , a kitchen and a communal toilet , clearly and expressly shows that the flat in question as regards its size and equipment is to be considered an unsuitable flat ( neuvjetan stan ) DATE provisional accommodation ( nužni smještaj ) .

The question whether the first plaintiff actually acquired the flat in question as provisional accommodation can not be assessed separately in the proceedings at issue ; instead we have to accept the presumption that it was so , which the first plaintiff knew or should have known , owing to which he could not acquire a protected tenancy of the flat in question since under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette nos . DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in force at the time , a protected tenancy could not be acquired in respect of flats and LOC used as provisional accommodation , as correctly established by the court of first instance in the impugned judgment .

Since the main condition for sale of a flat under LAW ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) is that the buyer is a holder of a protected tenancy of the flat which is the subject of the sale , the first - instance court correctly found that the contract in question concluded between the first and the second plaintiff on CARDINAL DATE was null and void under section CARDINAL of LAW because it had had no [ legal ] basis as the first plaintiff had not been a holder of a protected tenancy of the flat .

This court likewise accepts further findings of the first - instance court : that the first plaintiff had not acquired a protected tenancy of the flat in question , and the glass factory ... had had no right to dispose of the flat to give it to the first plaintiff for his use and so that he could acquire a protected tenancy , which he had therefore not done because , as said above , the glass factory actually gave the flat to the first plaintiff merely as provisional accommodation .

The evidence submitted does not show that the first plaintiff acquired a protected tenancy of the flat in question or that the flat was part of the glass factory 's housing assets , or that GPE or GPE recognised the first plaintiff 's protected tenancy of the flat ... and therefore the sale contract in question ... is in fact null and void because it has no [ legal ] basis DATE that is to say because the first plaintiff was not a holder of a protected tenancy of that flat ... ”

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint , arguing that a number of his constitutional rights , including his right to property , had been infringed because the lower courts ' judgments had deprived him of his ownership of the flat in question . On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o stambenim odnosima , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ A protected tenancy can not be acquired on :

Flats designated for temporary or provisional accommodation ... ”

The Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier ) Act ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL with further amendments - “ the LAW ” ) regulates the conditions of sale of flats let under protected tenancies .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW gave the right to the holders of protected tenancies of publicly - owned flats to purchase such flats under favourable conditions , provided that each holder bought CARDINAL flat .

Section CARDINAL obliged a seller to submit the sale contract for approval by the competent ORG Attorney 's ORG within DATE .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) , as then in force , read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Each contractual obligation shall have a permissible [ legal ] basis [ causa ] .

( CARDINAL)The basis is not permissible if it contravenes the LAW , peremptory norms or morals .

“ Where there is no [ legal ] basis or where it is not permissible , the contract is null and void . ”

“ The right to plead nullity shall be inextinguishable . ”

The relevant parts of the State Attorney 's Office Act ( Zakon o državnom odvjetništvu , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) read :

... the competent ORG Attorney 's Office shall ... seek the annulment of a contract ... which contravenes peremptory norms . ”


Mrs PERSON lives in GPE , where she is employed at the local health unit ( “ the ORG ” ) .

The present application concerns CARDINAL sets of proceedings , the first CARDINAL of which were instituted by the ORG against the applicant in ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and DATE by PERSON against the ORG in the same court . They concern the post assigned to the applicant at the ORG and her remuneration following the dissolution of ORG ( Consorzio provinciale antitubercolare ) , where she had formerly worked as an administrator . She contested in particular a series of decisions by which her new employer had assigned her to a staff category lower than the one to which she considered herself to be entitled .

The first set of proceedings began on DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ordered a stay of execution of the decision being challenged . In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE it ordered the ORG to file certain documents . On DATE the applicant applied to the court registry for the proceedings to be expedited .

The second set of proceedings began on DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ordered a stay of execution of the decision in question . In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE it ordered the ORG to file certain documents . On DATE the applicant applied to the court registry for the proceedings to be expedited .

The third set of proceedings began on DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG dismissed the application for execution of the decision to be stayed . In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE it ordered the ORG to file certain documents . On DATE the applicant applied to the court registry for the proceedings to be expedited .

The fourth set of proceedings began on DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG allowed , in part , the application for execution of the decision to be stayed . In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE it ordered the ORG to file certain documents . On DATE , the applicant applied to the court registry for the proceedings to be expedited .

The fifth set of proceedings began on CARDINAL DATE . In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ordered the ORG to file certain documents . On DATE the applicant applied to the court registry for the proceedings to be expedited .

According to the observations submitted by the applicant in DATE , the proceedings were then still pending .


No violation of Art. 14+P1-1;Remainder inadmissible

Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants , CARDINAL NORP military pensioners whose names along with other relevant information are listed below ( GPE ) , live in GPE .

On DATE , at the same time as the conclusion of a treaty on the withdrawal of NORP troops from NORP territory , GPE and GPE signed an agreement concerning the provision of social security guarantees to the retired military personnel of the armed forces of GPE on the territory of GPE ( “ the Agreement ” ) . The Agreement provided that retired military personnel , that is − persons discharged from army service and receiving pensions , could apply for residence permits in GPE . GPE undertook the securing of the payment of pensions to the persons concerned according to NORP legislation . Furthermore , it was stipulated that the retired military personnel could also apply for an NORP pension , in which case the payment of their NORP pension would be suspended while they were receiving an NORP pension , and vice versa .

Until DATE the NORP military pension was , in most cases , considerably higher than the NORP old - age pension . Then , after the change in the economic situation and amendment of the pension law , the NORP military retirees faced the situation where they could choose to receive either a NORP military pension ( smaller than the average old - age pension in GPE ) or an NORP old - age pension for DATE of service . In the latter case , DATE of pensionable employment in the civil sphere – and not the DATE of service in the NORP ( NORP ) armed forces – were taken into account . According to the applicants , in both cases the sums were rather small and not enough for survival in GPE .

From DATE many military retirees , including the applicants , who had worked in GPE in the civil sphere and fulfilled the requirements ( in particular , DATE of pensionable employment in GPE ) for receiving an NORP old - age pension , applied for and were granted , such a pension for life . However , DATE , after a regular exchange of information between the NORP social insurance authorities and ORG , the NORP authorities realised that ORG was continuing to pay the persons concerned NORP military pensions . The NORP authorities then suspended the payment of the NORP pension to the persons concerned and requested that they provide confirmation of the suspension of payment of the NORP military pension if they wished that the payment of the NORP pension be resumed .

According to the Government , who referred to information published in the LANGUAGE - speaking press , the average military pension paid by GPE in DATE was , depending on the person 's military rank , CARDINAL , CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) DATE ( corresponding to CARDINAL , CARDINAL or CARDINAL ( ORG ) , respectively ) . At the same time , the average old - age pension in GPE was EEK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . Although the pensions paid by GPE had increased since DATE , the NORP military pension was higher than the average NORP old - age pension and definitely higher than the minimum pension established in GPE ( EEK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE ) which they had been guaranteed under LAW .

According to the applicants , who relied on the information from ORG in GPE , the average pension of a NORP military pensioner in GPE in DATE was EEK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) − which was much less than the average NORP pension at the same time .

The applicants challenged the decisions of the NORP social security authorities to suspend the payment of the NORP old - age pension ( in the case of Mr PERSON DATE invalidity pension ) . Arguing that they had been discriminated against and that their property rights had been violated , they lodged complaints with the competent administrative courts against the individual decisions of the NORP social security authorities . They requested that the courts order the social security authorities to resume payment of the pension . Their complaints were dismissed in separate administrative court proceedings by the administrative courts and courts of appeal . In the case of all of the applicants , with the exception of PERSON V. PERSON , ORG dismissed the appeals as manifestly illfounded . Mr PERSON appeal was refused by ORG because of his failure to pay the court fee of EEK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . ORG examined his request for exemption and rejected it by a reasoned decision .

The reasoning underlying the individual decisions of the social security authorities as well as the complaints and judgments in respect of each of the applicants were similar and can be summarised as follows .

The courts found that the clear and unequivocal wording of LAW provided that CARDINAL of the States ( not both GPE simultaneously ) , should pay a pension to the military retirees . Simultaneous payment of the NORP military pension and the NORP old - age pension was excluded because ORG PERSON pensionikindlustuse seadus ) provided that if an international agreement entered into by GPE contained provisions which differed from the provisions of this LAW for the grant or payment of pensions , the international agreement applied ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . By way of comparison , the courts noted that ORG generally provided that persons who had the right to receive several state pensions were granted CARDINAL state pension of their choice . The same applied to members of ORG even if they qualified for an old - age pension and defence forces pension simultaneously ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( ORG seadus ) ) .

The courts did not exclude the possibility that there were people living in GPE who were receiving military pensions from a foreign country and , at the same time , a state pension from GPE . Nevertheless , they found that the NORP military retirees had not been discriminated against , as their situation was not comparable to that of persons who had served in the armies of GPE which were members of the same international organisations as GPE , such as ORG or ORG . The courts pointed out that the relationship of GPE with those countries had been established on a different basis .

The courts dismissed the argument concerning an alleged violation of the applicants ' legitimate expectation , noting that they could have no legitimate expectation of receiving CARDINAL pensions simultaneously , as the Agreement provided that a person could not receive CARDINAL pensions at the same time .

The courts also rejected the applicants ' allegation that their property rights had been violated , finding that , as they were continuing to receive their NORP military pension , the applicants did not meet the conditions required for receiving the NORP pension and that therefore they had no property rights within the meaning of LAW . The courts emphasised in this context that the applicants had the right to opt for an NORP pension instead of the NORP one at any moment they wished .

The courts found that the essence of the applicants ' pension rights had not been undermined , as they had been guaranteed an income sufficient for subsistence . They noted that , according to LAW , the applicants received a pension at least equal in value to the amount of the minimum pension in GPE .

Finally , the courts noted that the GPE which were parties to the ORG could amend LAW so that each of them undertook to pay pensions according to DATE of work in the respective country . However , this was a matter of political will ; the actual Agreement did not foresee such a possibility and there were no grounds for not applying the Agreement .

The State Pension Insurance Act ( PERSON pensionikindlustuse seadus ) , as in force at the material time , provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Under the conditions provided for in this Act , state pensions shall be granted and paid to :

CARDINAL ) NORP permanent residents of GPE ;

CARDINAL ) NORP aliens residing in GPE on the basis of temporary residence permits or a temporary right of residence .

( CARDINAL ) A state pension shall be granted pursuant to this LAW unless a person receives a state pension pursuant to other NORP Acts .

( CARDINAL ) If an international agreement entered into by GPE contains provisions which differ from the provisions of this LAW for the grant or payment of pensions , the international agreement applies . ”

“ Persons who have the right to receive several state pensions shall be granted CARDINAL state pension of their choice ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The following persons have the right to receive an old - age pension :

CARDINAL ) NORP persons who have reached DATE of age and

CARDINAL ) NORP whose pension - qualifying period as provided for in LAW and spent in GPE is DATE .

“ ( CARDINAL ) An old - age pension consists of CARDINAL components :

CARDINAL ) NORP the basic amount ( baasosa ) ;

CARDINAL ) a component calculated on the basis of DATE of pensionable service ( staažiosak ) , the amount of which equals DATE of pensionable service ( pensioniõiguslik staaž ) ( section CARDINAL ) multiplied by the financial value of DATE of pensionable service ;

CARDINAL ) an insurance component ( kindlustusosak ) , the amount of which equals the sum of the DATE factors of an insured person ( section CARDINAL ) multiplied by the financial value of DATE of pensionable service .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A pension - qualifying period ( pensionistaaž ) is a period during which an insured person is engaged in an activity which merits the right to receive a state pension .

( CARDINAL ) A pension qualifying period shall be divided as follows :

CARDINAL ) DATE of pensionable service ( pensioniõiguslik staaž ) , which is calculated up to DATE ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the accumulation period ( pensionikindlustusstaaž ) , which is calculated from DATE .

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG during which the employer of a person is required to pay social tax for the person shall be included in DATE of pensionable service ( pensioniõiguslik staaž ) of the person .

NORP The relevant provisions of the Agreement concerning social guarantees to retired military personnel of the armed forces of GPE on the territory of GPE , agreed between GPE and GPE on DATE , provide as follows :

“ The NORP Federation shall secure pensions for military retirees on the territory of GPE regardless of their nationality , on the conditions and according to the norms established by the legislation of GPE . The pension shall be paid at least in the amount of the minimum pension in GPE , including compensation .

“ The authorities of GPE may establish and pay at the cost of GPE pensions to military retirees who have a right to a pension under the laws of GPE , subject to the wishes of those military retirees .

In this case the payment of the pension that had earlier been established by GPE shall be suspended for the period of payment of pensions by the authorities of GPE , and vice versa . ”

A cooperation agreement on exchange of information on the enforcement of LAW was signed by ORG ) and ORG of ORG in GPE on DATE . A new agreement concerning the same matter was signed on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , GPE and GPE signed a general pension agreement which was amended by a protocol signed on DATE . That agreement and its protocol entered into force on DATE . These instruments provide that , as a rule , a person receives pension from his or her country of residence on the basis of that country 's legislation . Military pensioners , subject to the Agreement , do not fall under the general pension agreement .

The Government informed the ORG that GPE and GPE were holding negotiations to sign a new general pension agreement instead of the current one which was due to expire in DATE . According to its draft , each country would pay pension for DATE of pensionable employment accumulated on its territory . That principle would also apply to the military pensioners instead of LAW .

In a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL ) ORG of ORG dealt with a case similar to that of the applicants . ORG quashed the lower court 's judgment on procedural grounds and therefore did not rule on the merits of the case . Nevertheless , it pronounced its opinion on some aspects of the matter .

ORG considered that the so - called military pension paid under the Agreement was not a state pension and that therefore section CARDINAL of ORG was not applicable . It pointed out that pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , if an international agreement signed by GPE contained provisions which differed from the provisions of that LAW , the international agreement took precedence .

ORG found that pursuant to LAW it was not possible to simultaneously pay a pension for service in the NORP armed forces and for a subsequent period of employment in GPE . According to ORG which was invited to participate in the proceedings , this had been the understanding of the parties to the Agreement since its signing . However , the parties were aware of the problem and DATE the NORP party had taken the initiative to resolve it . ORG admitted that both the general approach and the factual circumstances had changed since the signing of the LAW . In drawing up recent pension agreements the principle of adding up different ( not overlapping ) periods was also applied ; this approach was used in ORG as well . It was also noted that the NORP and NORP parties were preparing a new pension agreement presumably also to address the issue of the military pensioners .

ORG referred the case to ORG which , in a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , dismissed the appeal . It held :

“ CARDINAL . ... In ORG opinion , LAW is justified , on the one hand , by the ORG 's obligation and need to economically use of the state budget . On the other hand , in assessing LAW , the context of the conclusion of the LAW has to be taken into account , in particular [ its ] relation to the [ treaty on the withdrawal of NORP troops from the NORP territory ] that was concluded at the same time . The purpose of these “ DATE agreements ” was the withdrawal from GPE of the armed forces of the country that had occupied GPE . As a compromise between the countries , military pensioners who did not pose a threat to NORP national security were granted the right to stay in GPE . In return , GPE assumed an obligation to secure for the military pensioners staying in GPE under the Agreement , a pension from GPE that would ensure their subsistence . When entering into the LAW , GPE had the right to avoid taking excessive risks with its state budget in connection with the remaining of the military pensioners in GPE .

As the complainant is and was an NORP national , his right to stay in GPE was guaranteed regardless of the Agreement ; however , [ his ] nationality alone does not provide him with any wider social guarantees as compared to other military pensioners of the [ GPE ] . ORG undertook to provide a pension to the complainant as well , regardless of his nationality ( LAW ) .

The complainant as a subject falling under the Agreement signed with GPE is not in the same position as the military pensioners who have served in the armies of those countries which belong to the same international organisations as GPE such as ORG or ORG .

On the basis of the above , ORG considers that LAW was in conformity with LAW at the time of its signing and ratification .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Agreement , in order to be applicable in the present case , also had to conform with the LAW at the time when the disputed administrative decision was taken . A provision of an international agreement can become unconstitutional after its ratification when the provision depriving a person of a right has in the meantime become unreasonable because of changed circumstances , and a reasonable time for amending the agreement or resolution of the matter at the domestic level has elapsed .

ORG has acknowledged that the conceptual bases of the international pension agreements had changed in the meantime . In the opinion of ORG this gives no ground to argue that LAW has already by now become unconstitutional . The conceptual bases of international pension agreements do not amount to constitutional principles . The development of international social insurance law is a long - term process wherein GPE also needs to be given considerable time to find the best legal and political solutions . The material referred to in ORG judgment in the present case confirms that the parties to the Agreement are engaged with the question concerning the pensions of the military pensioners of the former [ GPE ] .

Nor can ORG see that LAW has violated or currently violates any international obligations . ”

On DATE ORG declined to hear an appeal against ORG judgment .

In a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL ) ORG of ORG dealt with a case where the main issue was whether the complainant in that case was covered by the provisions of the Agreement . It was also required to interpret LAW . Referring to its judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG reaffirmed that , based on the grammatical interpretation of DATE and , above all , the common will and understanding of the parties to the LAW in respect of the interpretation and application of this provision , its current wording and the will of the parties only provided for the possibility of receiving a pension granted by CARDINAL of the countries at a time .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is married and has CARDINAL children . Prior to her application for an early - retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called “ EWK ” pension .

Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her son ’s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from bronchial asthma and that he was in need of his parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG ( “ the SSB ” ) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension as of DATE in the net amount of MONEY ( PLN ) .

ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision . On DATE the applicant resigned from her full - time job in a private company where she has been working since DATE . Afterwards , payment of the pension was resumed .

On DATE ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant ’s son required the permanent care of a parent . The doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .

On DATE ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant . By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG reopened the proceedings , revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early - retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the ORG ’s Ordinance of CARDINAL DATE on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care ( ORG PERSON . DATE w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) .

The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant ’s original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal . ORG concluded on the basis of the evidence , including expert medical evidence , that while indeed the applicant ’s child suffered from bronchial asthma he did not require his mother ’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his bodily functions . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care .

The applicant further appealed against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the Rzeszów Court of Appeal ( ORG ) dismissed the appeal .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .

Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of her right to an early - retirement pension .

The applicant submitted that she had been deprived of her principal source of income .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been employed continuously since DATE . Also her CARDINAL sons had worked . Moreover , the applicant owned a farm together with her husband .

In addition , the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in GPE . However , they did not specify which of those benefits , if any , were available in the applicant ’s situation .

Under the relevant laws currently in force , it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in DATE .

CARDINAL applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the ORG . The majority of the applicants form ORG ( ORG przez ZUS ) ( “ the Association ” ) , an organisation monitoring the practices of ORG in GPE , in particular in the ORG region .

Out of all applications lodged with the ORG , CARDINAL applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of ORG given in their case .

One hundred - and - CARDINAL applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases . ORG entertained and dismissed on the merits DATE appeals . In CARDINAL applications ORG refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require ORG to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts . In the remaining CARDINAL cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements .

NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgment in the case of GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE .

NORP The social security scheme for farmers is regulated by ORG the DATE LAW ; ustawa o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników ) .

The reopening of the proceedings concerning the early - retirement pension is regulated in CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG ( LOC o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which at the relevant time read as follows :

“ The right to benefits or the amount of benefits will be re - assessed upon application by the person concerned or , ex officio , if , after the validation of the decision concerning benefits , new evidence is submitted or circumstances which had existed before issuing the decision and which have an impact on the right to benefits or on their amount are discovered . ”

On DATE a new subparagraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) was added , which reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL shall apply respectively , if , after the validation of the decision it is discovered that the evidence that had been submitted did not give the right to a pension , disability pension or its amount . ”

A party to civil proceedings could , at the material time , lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against a judicial decision of a second - instance court . A party had to be represented by an advocate or a legal adviser .

Article CARDINAL of LAW as applicable at the material time listed the grounds on which a cassation appeal could be lodged . It read as follows :

“ The cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds :

CARDINAL ) a breach of substantive law as a result of its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application ;

CARDINAL ) a breach of procedural provisions , if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case . ”

Pursuant to LAW , having allowed a cassation appeal , could quash the challenged judgment in its entirety or in part and remit the case for re - examination . Where ORG failed to find non - conformity with the law , it dismissed the cassation appeal . According to Article CARDINAL if the cassation appeal was well - founded ORG could also amend the impugned judgment and adjudicate on the merits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG ( LOC o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . More specifically , the ORG submitted that the introduction of an age - limit in respect of persons taking care of a child , which in essence amounted to a deprivation of the right to a benefit , constituted a violation of the principle of equality set forth in LAW .

On DATE ORG ( KCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) declared the impugned section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . ORG reiterated among other things the constitutional principle of acquired rights which guarantees particularly strong protection for the right to receive social welfare benefits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen ex officio proceedings relating to the grant of a pension or a disability pension on the basis of a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .

On DATE ORG ( GPE declared the impugned section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen such proceedings following a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .


Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the domestic authorities' failure to examine the applicant's civil claim;Remainder inadmissible;No separate issue as to the length of the proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of ORG in LOC .

After the dismissal from a position in the LOC locomotive depot , in DATE the applicant sued her former employer for reinstatement , payment of wage arrears and benefits . On DATE ORG of the LOC pronounced the judgment in her favour . The judgment was not appealed against and became final .

The applicant was reinstated but on DATE she was transferred to another position . She refused to perform the new duties and on DATE the employer disciplined her . On DATE the employer decided to transfer the applicant to another position .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decisions of CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE before a court . She also claimed wages for DATE .

On DATE ORG annulled the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE and dismissed the remainder of the claims . The judgment of DATE was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for re - examination .

The applicant was dismissed from her position on DATE . Thus , she amended her claims in the pending court proceedings , asking the court also to reinstate her and grant her wage arrears and compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG partly accepted the action . It annulled the disciplinary decisions but dismissed the claims for reinstatement and wage arrears . The judgment was quashed on DATE and the case was again returned for re - examination .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant 's reinstatement and payment of arrears . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

NORP In DATE the applicant moved from the village of GPE to the town of GPE in LOC and notified ORG of the change of her place of residence . In DATE the applicant moved to the village of Rebrikha in the same region . She maintained the PERSON address for her correspondence because her daughter continued living at that address . According to the Government , the applicant did not inform LOC about the changes of her place of residence .

In DATE the applicant received at the PERSON address a letter of CARDINAL DATE signed by a deputy President of ORG . The deputy President informed the applicant that an application for supervisory review of the judgments of DATE and DATE had been lodged before the Presidium of ORG . The ORG had fixed a supervisory - review hearing for CARDINAL DATE . The applicant 's presence was not required .

On DATE the Presidium of the Sakhalin Regional Court amended the reasoning of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ordered a fresh examination by ORG of the claims concerning the applicant 's reinstatement , payment of wage arrears and compensation for damage .

According to the Government , LOC fixed hearings but adjourned them because the applicant could not be summonsed . The Government did not indicate any date of a hearing fixed by ORG between DATE and DATE .

In DATE the applicant complained to ORG and a member of ORG about the excessive length of the proceedings in her case .

On DATE the ORG inquired the NORP Town and LOC police departments about the registered place of the applicant 's residence . In DATE the LOC police department replied that the applicant had moved to PERSON in DATE . The District police department indicated her address in PERSON . The NORP Town police department responded that the applicant had lived in PERSON and then moved to the village of PERSON . The letter of the town police department read as follows :

“ To your inquiry of DATE [ we ] inform you that PERSON , born in DATE in LOC , was registered at the following address : the town of GPE , GPE street , DATE . Her registration was annulled on DATE upon a request from LOC to [ the following address ] the village of GPE , GPE street , house no . CARDINAL , flat no . CARDINAL . ”

On DATE ORG sent a telegram to the applicant 's address in the village of Rebrikha informing the applicant about the hearing on DATE . An acknowledgment of receipt shows that the telegram was not delivered to the applicant because the street name and the house number had not been indicated . According to the Government , the telegram was not delivered because the applicant had once again moved to the town of ORG and had failed to notify the court about that . According to the applicant , she notified LOC of her move to ORG , however , she did not receive any correspondence from ORG at the ORG address .

ORG fixed another hearing for DATE and sent summonses to the applicant . It appears that they were sent to her address in the village of Rebrikha .

On DATE ORG issued an interim decision under LAW . It discontinued the proceedings because the applicant had defaulted on DATE and DATE , she had not informed the court about the reasons for her absence and had appeared to have lost interest in her case .

According to the applicant , in the absence of a notification of any decision in her case she unsuccessfully complained to various domestic authorities , including ORG and ORG , about the failure of the domestic courts to determine her case within a reasonable time . No response followed , save for the one on DATE when the acting President of ORG sent a copy of the decision of DATE to the applicant 's home address in the town of ORG , whereto she had moved on an unspecified date .

The RSFSR Code on Civil Procedure of CARDINAL DATE ( in force at the material time ) provided that civil cases were to be prepared for a hearing DATE after the action had been lodged with the court . Civil cases were to be examined DATE after the preparation for the hearing had been completed ( LAW )

Summonses were to be served on the parties and their representatives in such way so that they would have enough time to appear timely at the hearing and prepare their case . If necessary , the parties could be summoned by a phone call or a telegram ( Article CARDINAL ) .

A party was to sign the second copy of a summons which was to be returned to a court . If a summons could not be served on a party , it was to be served on an adult family member who lived with the party . A family member who had received a summons was to indicate on its second copy his / her first name , patronymic and family name and his / her relation to a summonsed party . If a party was absent , a person who delivered a summons was to note on the second copy of the summons where the party had moved ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that a court could issue an interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings ( определение об оставлении заявления без рассмотрения ) , in particular , if the plaintiff had not waived his / her right to be present and had failed to appear for the second time , and the respondent had not insisted on continuation of the proceedings .

A copy of an interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings was to be sent to the absent party DATE upon its delivery ( LAW .


András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . Additionally , the case and decision numbers of the impugned proceedings appear in the appendix .

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

On various dates , the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts . The procedures lasted DATE .

A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür PERSON and Others ( ( dec . ) , no CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger

By decisions of ORG adopted DATE ORG Zbagachuvalna Fabryka ' ORG ' ” ( ДВАТ « Центральна збагачувальна фабрика “ PERSON ” PERSON ) was ordered to pay the applicants various amounts in salary arrears and other payments ( see PERSON I for details ) . The decisions in favour of the applicants remain unenforced .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the ORG v. GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .