Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE the Volkhovskiy Town Court of Leningrad Region ordered the applicant ’s reinstatement at work as the managing director of a private company OOO “ Valgomka ” and awarded him payments of lost earnings , arrears on salary , vacation allowance , and compensation for psychological distress . Subsequently , the applicant submitted the writ of execution to ORG and on DATE the enforcement proceedings were initiated .

On DATE the Volkhovskiy Town Court of Leningrad Region acting on the applicant ’s complaint against the alleged inaction of the bailiffs ordered ORG to enforce the abovementioned judgment .

On DATE he was reinstated at work as the managing director of a private company OOO “ Valgomka ” . On DATE ORG for LOC terminated the enforcement proceedings concerning the remainder of the judgment due to bankruptcy of the debtor .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . On DATE he was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . On DATE the applicant made a request for reconsideration . On DATE the previous decision was upheld . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13+2;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicants are :

CARDINAL ) PERSON ( also spelled as ORG Magomadova , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) Ms Ayshat Magomadova ( also known as GPE ) , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON ( also spelled as Aset ) Magomadova , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicants live in GPE , GPE . The first applicant is the mother of FAC , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is his wife ; the third and the fourth applicants are his daughter and son ; the fifth applicant is his sister .

At the material time FAC was working as a senior officer at the investigations department in the GPE district department of the interior in GPE ( the NORP ROVD ) . He had been doing this since DATE .

On TIME the applicants , with FAC and other relatives , were at home at CARDINAL FAC , in GPE , GPE . The household consisted of CARDINAL dwellings ; CARDINAL of them was occupied by the first applicant , another by FAC and his family and the third by his brother and his family . The applicants ' house was near a NORP military checkpoint .

At TIME a group of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniform rushed into the applicants ' yard . They broke into CARDINAL groups . CARDINAL group went into the first applicant 's part of the house and the other one went into the part occupied by FAC and his family .

Those intruders who were not wearing masks had a NORP appearance . The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents . They spoke NORP without an accent . The applicants thought that they were NORP military servicemen .

The servicemen pointed their guns at the applicants and ordered them not to move . CARDINAL of the intruders went into FAC part of the house . They shouted and swore at the applicants and ordered everyone not to move . When the second applicant asked them what was going on , she and her children were forced to go into another room , where some of the servicemen put their guns to the applicants ' heads and ordered them to lie on the floor .

NORP The rest of the servicemen threw FAC on to the floor , bound his hands , placed a pillowcase over his head , bound it with adhesive tape and took him outside . FAC was barefoot and in his underwear .

The servicemen did not ask for ORG identity documents . They searched the house and took his service gun , a hunting rifle and a folder with official papers which he had brought home from work .

After that the servicemen placed FAC in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL APCs ( armoured personnel carriers ) which were parked next to the applicants ' house and took him away .

According to the applicants , some time later the local military commander told them that representatives of ORG of ORG , ORG ( the ORG ) and ORG ( the ORG ) had requested to be provided with unopposed passage through the checkpoint near the applicants ' house on TIME CARDINAL DATE .

The applicants have had no news of FAC since DATE .

In support of their statements the applicants submitted the following : an account by the second applicant given on DATE , an account by the applicants ' neighbour PERSON given on DATE , an account by the first applicant given on DATE , an account given by the applicants ' neighbour Mr N. on DATE and a character reference for FAC by ORG , dated DATE .

The Government did not challenge most of the account given by the applicants . According to their submission , TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL unidentified persons armed with automatic weapons and with the support of CARDINAL APCs unlawfully broke into the household situated at CARDINAL FAC , GPE , GPE ; there , using violent threats , they abducted PERSON and departed to an unknown destination ” .

On DATE the applicants started their search for FAC . They contacted , both in person and in writing , various official bodies , such as the President of GPE , the NORP administration , military commanders ' offices and prosecutors ' offices at different levels , describing in detail the circumstances of their relative 's abduction and asking for assistance in establishing his whereabouts . The applicants retained copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of FAC under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE . Some time later the investigation of the criminal case was transferred to the LOC district prosecutor 's office of PERSON ( the district prosecutor 's office ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the fifth applicant that they had not established the identity of the perpetrators of her brother 's abduction .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the military prosecutor 's office of ORG ( the prosecutor 's office of the ORG ) forwarded the first applicant 's requests for assistance in the search for her son to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL forwarded the first applicant 's request to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . DATE .

On DATE the information centre of ORG of the Interior informed the first applicant that no information was available about her son 's detention .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that her request for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of FAC had been included in the criminal case file .

On DATE and DATE ORG of ORG in ORG forwarded the first applicant 's requests to its operational search division in ORG and the GPE prosecutor 's office respectively .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office forwarded the first applicant 's requests to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that at her request they had examined the theory of the possible involvement of NORP military servicemen in the abduction of her son and that this theory had not been confirmed .

On DATE detention centre no . CARDINAL of ORG in the PERSON region informed the fifth applicant that FAC was not listed among their detainees .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed a number of ORG authorities , including the GPE prosecutor 's office , that the involvement of NORP military forces in the disappearance of ORG had not been confirmed .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on DATE and that it had been suspended on DATE for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators .

On DATE the GPE military commander forwarded the first applicant 's request for assistance in the search for her son to the GPE prosecutor 's office . According to the letter , the first applicant complained about the abduction and stated that the abductors had arrived in APCs and that they had taken away FAC service weapon and hunting rifle .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that on DATE the district prosecutor 's office had instituted an investigation into the abduction of FAC .

On DATE ORG of ORG in ORG informed the first applicant that its ORG had not abducted FAC .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of the ORG informed the first applicant that information concerning the investigation into the abduction of FAC was available at the GPE prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that information about the criminal investigation was available at the district prosecutor 's office .

In DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed a number of ORG authorities , including the GPE prosecutor 's office , that the theory of the involvement of NORP military forces in the abduction of ORG had not been confirmed .

NORP On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office forwarded the first applicant 's request for assistance in the search for her son to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that her request had been included in the criminal case file materials and that they were taking operational search measures to establish the identity of the perpetrators .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the GPE military commander . She complained about her son 's abduction and stated that the intruders had taken his service weapon , a hunting rifle and a folder of official papers . She also pointed out that although the criminal investigation into the abduction had been instituted on DATE , for DATE the authorities had failed to establish the whereabouts of FAC .

On DATE the fifth applicant requested the district prosecutor 's office to inform her about the progress in the investigation of criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the fifth applicant requested the district prosecutor 's office to resume the investigation in the criminal case .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the fifth applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that the theory of the involvement of NORP military forces in the abduction of ORG had not been confirmed .

On CARDINAL DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that the district prosecutor 's office was conducting an investigation into her son 's disappearance .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the fifth applicant that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been resumed on DATE .

DATE . On an unspecified date the second applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no . DATE .

The Government submitted that on DATE , upon a complaint by the second applicant about the abduction of FAC , the PERSON prosecutor 's office had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction under LAW of LAW Criminal Code ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file had been given number DATE . On DATE the authorities also opened criminal case no . DATE in connection with the theft of ORG service weapon . Some time later the investigation of these CARDINAL cases was joined into CARDINAL investigation in criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant and granted her victim status on DATE . She stated that since DATE her husband had been working in the investigations department of the PERSON ROVD . At TIME on DATE the family was sleeping in their house at CARDINAL FAC . She was woken by a noise in the yard and saw CARDINAL armed men in multicoloured military uniform , high boots and black masks . All these men were armed with typical submachine guns . They ordered her to stay in bed . The men acted in silence ; CARDINAL of them was swearing and speaking unaccented NORP . The intruders threw her husband on to the floor and tied his hands behind his back with adhesive tape . After that they asked the applicant whether there was a balaclava mask in the house . When she replied in the negative , they took a pillowcase , put it over her husband 's head and wrapped adhesive tape around it . After that they took FAC outside ; he was barefoot and in his underwear . They ordered the second applicant to stay inside . However , after the intruders had gone outside , she ran out into the street and saw CARDINAL APCs driving away in different directions . CARDINAL of the APCs drove into FAC , the other one went off in the direction of the LOC autoroute . CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniform and masks were sitting on each of the APCs . As it was dark , the witness could not see whether there were any identifying marks on the vehicles . According to the second applicant , her relatives , who had been made to stay indoors , also saw the abductors driving away . The intruders had also taken away FAC service weapon , his double - barrelled hunting rifle , a black leather folder with documents from his work , prayer beads , a skullcap and QUANTITY . On DATE the second applicant was questioned again . Her statement was similar to the ones given on DATE and DATE .

On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned PERSON brother , PERSON , who stated that their family household consisted of QUANTITY houses in CARDINAL yard . FAC and his family lived in CARDINAL house and the witness and his mother ( the first applicant ) in the other . At TIME on DATE the witness was woken up by his mother 's screaming . When he walked out of the room , several men in camouflage uniform and masks pointed their guns at him . They told him that it was a regular identity check . After that they checked his passport and went outside . He followed them and saw CARDINAL APCs driving away from the house in different directions . CARDINAL of them drove away along FAC and the other departed in the direction of a local store . According to the witness , after he had returned home his sister - in - law ( the second applicant ) informed him that his brother PERSON had been taken away and that the abductors had also taken away his brother 's service weapon , a hunting rifle and a folder with documents .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants ' neighbour , Mr A.N. , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had woken up and heard the noise of engines . Across the street from his house he saw an ORG and men standing next to it . The men were speaking rudely in LANGUAGE . TIME he found out from his neighbours about FAC abduction .

On DATE ORG of the Interior conducted an inquiry into the abduction of FAC . As a result it was established that he had indeed been abducted by unidentified persons .

On DATE the investigators questioned the fifth applicant , who stated that on DATE she had been at home when her daughter , who had stayed TIME at the house of the first applicant , informed her about the abduction of FAC . After that the witness had gone to her mother 's house in FAC . There the first applicant and PERSON told her that at TIME armed men in CARDINAL APCs had arrived at the house . The men were wearing masks and camouflage uniform without any insignia or attributes . The intruders had proceeded into FAC bedroom , and without introducing themselves dragged him out of bed . Then they asked the second applicant whether there was a balaclava mask in the house . When the second applicant told them that there was none , they took a pillowcase , put it over FAC head and tied his hands with adhesive tape . According to the witness , her brother had no unpaid debts .

On DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as DATE ) the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned . According to the witness , on DATE she , her son PERSON and other relatives had been sleeping at home . At TIME she had heard a noise in the yard . When the applicant had tried to open the entrance door , a man had pointed his gun at her and ordered her to stay in the house . From the window she saw armed men entering her son 's house , which was situated across from her house in the same yard . According to the applicant , the intruders , a group of CARDINAL military servicemen in masks , spoke NORP among themselves . They had spent TIME in FAC house . After they had left , the first applicant found out from the second applicant that the men had taken away FAC . TIME the applicant had learnt that these men had arrived in CARDINAL APCs and entered their yard by getting over the fence between the applicants ' and one of their neighbours ' yards .

On DATE and in DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators . The applicants were informed about these decisions .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was resumed . The applicants were informed about it on the same date .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' neighbours , PERSON and Mr Kh . PERSON , who provided similar statements . According to the witnesses , they had not witnessed the events , but on TIME CARDINAL DATE they had found out from their neighbours that at TIME on DATE unidentified armed men , arriving in a NORP vehicle , had abducted their neighbour FAC .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended .

On DATE the investigation of criminal case no . DATE was transferred to the NORP inter - district investigations department of ORG .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' neighbour , Mr S.I. , who stated that he had learnt from his acquaintances that at TIME on DATE his neighbour PERSON had been abducted from his house by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniform who had arrived in APCs .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' neighbour , PERSON . PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE she had been woken by screaming and crying outside . She had gone out into the street and next to the PERSON ' house she had been told that a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniform had broken into the house and taken away FAC .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators .

On DATE the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON former colleague , ORG , who stated that DATE FAC had worked as the head of the operational division in LOC and after that he had worked as a senior investigator at the PERSON ROVD . At DATE LOC had received a complaint from ORG relatives that he had been abducted from his own house .

On DATE the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators .

DATE . On DATE the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed .

On an unspecified date the investigators conducted a crime scene examination at the applicants ' house . No evidence was found or collected .

On an unspecified date the investigators requested no . CARDINAL Operational Search Bureau of the Chechnya Ministry of the ORG to conduct operational search measures aimed , inter alia , at establishing the identity of eyewitnesses to the abduction who had seen the abductors ' armoured vehicles .

According to the Government , the investigators also requested information from various ORG authorities about the disappearance . On various dates these authorities , including the district offices of the ORG and the military prosecutors ' office , stated that they had not detained FAC or carried out a criminal investigation into his activities . Also on unspecified dates a number of the district departments of the interior in GPE informed the investigation that they had never detained or delivered PERSON to a temporary detention facility . On unspecified dates the remand centres in GPE and the neighbouring regions informed the investigation that the missing man had never been detained on their LOC . According to the responses from the GPE military commanders ' office and a number of the district military commanders ' offices located in the Republic , the previously acting military commanders ' offices had been disbanded in DATE and no information was available about special operations conducted by these offices prior to DATE .

The Government submitted that the investigation was checking several theories concerning the abduction of FAC : firstly that his abduction had been committed by NORP military servicemen ; secondly that it had been perpetrated by persons to whom FAC owed money ; thirdly that his abductors were members of illegal armed groups ; and fourthly that his abduction had been carried out for a ransom .

The investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of FAC . The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent ORG agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved . The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of federal forces in the crime . The law enforcement authorities of GPE had never arrested or detained FAC on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect .

NORP In response to the ORG 's request , the ORG submitted several documents from the investigation file , running to CARDINAL pages . The Government requested the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court concerning confidentiality of the submitted documents and to restrict public access to the submitted documentation . In their request the ORG stated that the criminal investigation was still in progress and that public disclosure of the documents could be detrimental to the interests of participants in the criminal proceedings .

The Government further stated that a copy of the entire investigation file could not be submitted to the ORG owing to the absence of any guarantees on the part of the ORG of non - disclosure of the secret data contained in the investigation file . In this respect the Government referred to LAW , since the file contained information concerning participants in criminal proceedings . They also cited , by way of comparison , LAW of ORG of DATE ( Articles CARDINAL and DATE ) and the Statute of ORG for the former GPE ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and argued that these instruments provided for personal responsibility for a breach of the rules of confidentiality .

DATE . For a summary of the relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant joined ORG of Iran ( “ the ORG ” ) .

In DATE he arrived in GPE . He lived in the PERSON , where ORG members were accommodated in GPE , until he left the organisation in DATE . After leaving the ORG he went to ORG ( “ TIPF ” ) , a camp created by GPE forces in GPE . This facility was subsequently named ORG ( “ ARC ” ) .

On DATE , after being interviewed , the applicant was recognised as a refugee by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) Headquarters in GPE during his stay in GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicant arrived in GPE on a false passport .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP security forces while attempting to leave for the island of GPE , GPE , from the port of LOC , on a false passport .

On an unspecified date the ORG branch office asked the national authorities to grant the applicant access to the asylum procedure in GPE . This request was refused in view of the fact that the applicant ’s presence in GPE constituted a threat to national security given his membership of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the city of GPE in eastern GPE , apparently with a view to his deportation to GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative lodged an application with the ORG , requesting it to stop the applicant ’s deportation to GPE and arguing under LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG that his removal to GPE would expose him to a real risk of ill - treatment ( application no . ORG ) .

On DATE , the President of the Second Section decided to indicate to the Government of GPE , under LAW , that the applicant should not be deported to GPE until further notice .

With reference to the interim measure under LAW , the deportation proceedings were suspended and on DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG Foreigners’ Admission and ORG .

On DATE the Second Section of the ORG found that there would be a violation of LAW if the applicant were to be removed to GPE or GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , no . ORG , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE the General Security Directorate of ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) decided that the applicant was to be released from the ORG and ORG and issued with a temporary residence permit in GPE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was released accordingly . He is currently living in GPE .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE a lawyer registered with ORG , PERSON , had petitioned ORG for the applicant ’s release from the ORG and ORG .

Upon the administrative authorities’ failure to reply within DATE , which is considered to be a tacit refusal of the request under section CARDINAL of the Administrative Procedure Act ( Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , on DATE Mr PERSON brought an action before ORG . He requested that the court quash the decision of the Ministry not to release his client , which decision infringed his right to liberty as a recognised refugee , and order a stay of execution of that decision pending the proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the request for a stay of execution . PERSON appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG declined to examine the appeal request .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s case . It held at the outset that the relevant legislation required the deportation of persons in the applicant ’s position , that is , persons who had entered GPE illegally and whose presence in the country posed a danger to public order and security . If , however , deportation had become unfeasible for some reason , then the individuals concerned would be accommodated at a place designated by ORG until such time as the deportation proceedings could be finalised . ORG noted that in the instant case the applicant ’s deportation had come to a halt following the interim measure indicated by ORG and he had therefore been placed in an accommodation centre in accordance with the law . By refusing his release , the administration had thus acted in accordance with the applicable laws . The administrative court also noted that granting temporary residence permits to persons awaiting deportation would render their monitoring and control very difficult .

NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . He claimed that he had been held at the ORG and ORG since DATE against his will and that this deprivation of liberty had no basis in domestic law and lacked any legal safeguards . He moreover argued that he had not been released from detention despite the judgment of ORG , which had ruled that his deportation would constitute a violation of LAW . He also claimed that the administration had failed to submit any evidence in support of its allegation that he posed a threat to public order and security .

It appears that the appeal proceedings are still pending before ORG . However , in the meantime , the applicant was released from the ORG and ORG on CARDINAL DATE upon the order of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice , as well as the international material , may be found in the case of GPE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Vitanje .

On DATE the applicant was injured in an accident at work . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG , Slovenske Konjice Unit ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON , PERSON v ORG ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

On DATE ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) gained jurisdiction in the case due to the reform of the NORP court system .

At an undetermined time in DATE , the presiding judge was appointed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) and the case was assigned to a new judge .

DATE the applicant made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing . During this time he lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court allowed both appeals in part and lowered the damages awarded .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) . On DATE he sought a recusal of CARDINAL of the judges .

On DATE the president of the court rejected the request for a recusal .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant , who was born on DATE in GPE , was abandoned by her mother at birth .

Her birth certificate records the following information :

“ DATE , DATE , at TIME , a woman , who did not consent to being named , gave birth to a baby girl . ”

The applicant was placed first in an orphanage and subsequently with the PERSON family . When she was DATE she was adopted by PERSON and PERSON under the simple adoption ( affiliazione ) procedure , by a decision of ORG of DATE .

At DATE , after learning that she had been adopted , the applicant asked her adoptive parents to tell her who her birth parents were , but did not receive an answer . On an unspecified date she discovered that a young girl living in her village , who had been born on DATE as her , had been abandoned and subsequently adopted by another family under the simple adoption procedure . The applicant suspected that she was her twin sister . The adoptive parents of the CARDINAL girls prohibited any contact between them .

The applicant stated that she had had a very difficult childhood because she had been unable to find out her origins .

In DATE the applicant requested information about her origins from ORG , in accordance with CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( LAW : “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) , the regulations governing simple adoption having been repealed by that PERSON . ORG gave the applicant her birth certificate , on which her birth mother ’s name did not appear because she had not agreed to have her identity disclosed .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , under LAW no . CARDINAL , seeking rectification of her birth certificate . On CARDINAL DATE the court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application on the ground that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Law no . CARDINAL provided that where persons aged over CARDINAL were seeking access to information about their birth parents the court with the appropriate jurisdiction was ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG . On DATE the court dismissed her application on the ground that , under section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , she was prohibited from gaining access to information about her origins because her mother , at the time of the applicant ’s birth , had not agreed to have her identity disclosed .

The applicant appealed to ORG , which dismissed her appeal by a decision of DATE .

The court observed , in particular , that ORG had stressed the fact that the applicant ’s birth mother had requested to keep her identity secret and that it had therefore correctly applied section PERSON ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , even though the applicant had been adopted under a simple adoption order , as simple adoption did nevertheless create a family status . ORG found that section PERSON ) was designed to guarantee respect for the mother ’s wishes . The prohibition on allowing the applicant access to information about her origins also served a public interest .

The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law .

Under LAW , one of the parents may decide not to recognise his or her child . In order to exercise that right , the mother must , at the time of the birth , request the hospital to keep her identity secret . In such a case a medical file containing medical information about the mother and child is drawn up . Only the child ’s general practitioner may have access to the file , with the permission of the child ’s guardian .

Simple adoption ( affiliazione ) was created in DATE in order to provide assistance to abandoned or parentless children aged DATE . Unlike full adoption , this did not create an effective family relationship and the person being adopted did not have to be childless ; however , he or she did have to be aged DATE . A simple adoption order could be requested by : the person with whom the child had been placed , ORG , or the person who had been raising the child on their own initiative .

The Articles of the Civil Code providing for simple adoption were repealed as a result of the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( subsequently revised by Law no . DATE and by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL guarantees the right to keep a child ’s origins secret in the absence of express authorisation by the judicial authority .

NORP Under section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . MONEY , a mother who decides not to keep her child can give birth in a hospital and at the same time remain anonymous on the declaration of birth . That anonymity lasts DATE , after which access to the birth certificate becomes possible .

An adoption order , once issued by the court , is sent to the register office so that a note can be made in the margin of the birth certificate . Any copies of the adopted child ’s civil - status certificates must be issued with only the new family name shown and must bear no mention of the biological father or mother or any annotation regarding the adoption . However , where the registrar is expressly so authorised by the court , he or she may disclose this information .

Adopted children may have access to information about their origins and the identity of their birth parents on reaching DATE . Where there are compelling and proven reasons relating to their physical and mental health , they may obtain that information on their majority . An application is lodged with the family court of their place of residence , which gives its decision after assessing the particular situation and hearing any persons whom it deems it necessary to hear .

Access to the information is refused where the birth mother has not recognised the child at birth and where CARDINAL of the birth parents has declared their wish not to be named on the birth certificate or has given their consent to the adoption subject to remaining anonymous .

NORP In a judgment of DATE , ORG held that withholding information about a child ’s origins without first verifying whether the mother still did not wish to be identified was compatible with ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW .

The Constitutional Court observed , in particular , that section NORP ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL aimed to protect mothers who – in difficult circumstances – decided not to keep their child , by allowing them the possibility of giving birth in a hospital and at the same time remaining anonymous on the declaration of birth . In the court ’s view , the mother could thus give birth in good conditions and was prevented from taking an irreversible decision . That possibility would be jeopardised if , under that provision , the mother were also to know that she might DATE be called upon by the judicial authority to confirm or waive her decision .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides : “ Appeals to ORG in cases of violations of the law are always admissible against judgments or measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by the ordinary or special courts ” .

A government bill on access to personal origins has been before ORG DATE . The bill has CARDINAL main objectives :

i ) to permit and make provision for a procedure whereby confidentiality can be waived without calling into question the legal consequences of the decision initially taken by the mother ;

ii ) to make a waiver of confidentiality subject to the express agreement of the mother and child .

Under the provisions of the bill , anyone aged CARDINAL or over who has been adopted and not recognised at birth may apply to the family court for access to information about their origins , subject to the mother ’s agreement . Where the child seeks to discover his or her origins , the family court will take steps to find the mother and obtain her consent to waive confidentiality while respecting her private life . Where the mother has died and where the father has died or can not be identified , the court will obtain information about their identity and any medical data that may disclose the existence of any transmissible hereditary diseases .

Whilst the system of anonymous or secret births would appear to exist in a minority of countries in LOC , it is not exceptional . In addition to GPE , where for DATE the positive law has provided for a system of anonymous births , other national legislations , which are relatively recent as they have been drafted during DATE , also provide for births in such conditions ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ) .

In GPE the system of anonymous births tends to resemble that of secret births , like the practice in GPE where the secrecy of the birth mother ’s identity is temporary , rather than definitive , as access to the relevant information is delayed .

The situation of children born anonymously or secretly is comparable to that of children who find it difficult , or even impossible , to gain access to their biological origins . The omission of the name of CARDINAL or other or of both parents may sometimes be provided for by law , but this is very rare ( GPE , GPE , GPE ) . Usually factual circumstances will prevent the registrar from fully completing the child ’s birth certificate ; court proceedings are brought to determine paternity / maternity and may be available to persons other than the child alone . Notwithstanding the fact that such actions may not necessarily be effective in the particular circumstances , their very existence , allowing research to be done into personal ties maintained by a child with his birth family , provides a safeguard for the interested persons .

It should further be pointed out that the practice of abandoning children continues in modern forms : there is an undeniable increase in the number of “ windows ” or “ baby hatches ” reminiscent of foundling wheels in DATE . It is practically and materially impossible for the child to gain access to information about his or her birth family ; the register of births will give a “ fictitious ” name to the child that bears no connection to that of its birth parents . The circumstances of the birth may be only partially secret ( GPE , GPE ) , but this will then necessarily mean that some data is available . Legal proceedings are generally available for children searching for their birth mother ( GPE , GPE , the former GPE ) or mothers who may be searching for their child ( GPE ) .

In the case of full adoption , the child will often lose all contact with its birth family ; the new parent - child relationship will totally erase any ties that may have existed during the child ’s previous life with other adults ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the former GPE ) . Access to the birth certificate is sometimes possible from DATE ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ) . The child may be authorised to gain access to a wider range of information ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ) , which often presupposes bringing legal proceedings whereby the competing interests may be examined .

GPE and GPE have set up a mechanism making it easier for adopted persons to gain access to records about their adoption that goes a long way towards reconciling the right to information of the adopted child and respect for the private and family life of the mother or , more broadly , the birth family .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in the same city . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , of ORG of GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant married Y. On DATE their daughter was born .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife attempted to commit suicide by jumping from a balcony . According to the applicant , on the same date his parents - in - law arrived and took away his DATE daughter , whom the applicant had asked their neighbours to look after shortly before the incident .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife died from her injuries without ever having regained consciousness .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG in GPE seeking to have his daughter returned to him . The applicant ’s parents - in - law lodged a counterclaim seeking to have full custody of the child . They alleged , in particular , that the applicant had ill - treated Y. and had taken poor care of his daughter .

On DATE the court found for the applicant . The court held that both the applicant and his parents - in - law were positively characterised and offered appropriate living conditions but that a father should be given priority over grandparents in determining the residence of a child . The court considered that it could not rely on various witnesses’ statements to the effect that the applicant had ill - treated his wife , because the witnesses were his wife ’s friends , disliked the applicant and had never directly witnessed the events described by them .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed this decision and found against the applicant . It noted that on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG for ORG ( “ орган опіки та піклування ORG комітету GPE районної у місті MONEY ) had recommended that the applicant ’s daughter should remain resident with the applicant ’s parentsin - law as a change of home could lead to her suffering serious psychological trauma . According to the medical records submitted , the applicant ’s daughter suffered from residual cerebral insufficiency and showed signs of “ early childhood nervousness ” syndrome . A medical expert assessment performed by ORG ( ORG обласне бюро судово-медичної експертизи ) on DATE had concluded that a change of home could aggravate her state of health . The court also noted that a criminal investigation into whether the applicant had been culpable in DATE ’s death ( in particular , whether he had caused or contributed to her suicide ) was still pending . The first - instance court had also erroneously disregarded the ORG statements to the effect that the applicant had had a negative attitude towards his wife and his family .

The applicant appealed , stating , inter alia , that his daughter ’s illnesses had been diagnosed DATE after she had been taken to live with his parents - in - law .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal in cassation .

On DATE ORG rejected an application by the applicant ’s parents - in - law , lodged in DATE , to deprive the applicant of his parental rights and noted that they were preventing him from seeing his daughter . This decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .

On DATE ORG , after several refusals , instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had caused his wife to commit suicide .

In DATE the same prosecutor ’s office twice terminated the proceedings for want of evidence of a crime . It would appear that these decisions were quashed and the case remitted for fresh investigation .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were finally terminated for want of evidence of a crime . It was concluded that the applicant ’s wife had been depressed , that she had been under the influence of the teachings of an esoteric sect and that she had jumped from the balcony . According to a medical expert report , Y. had had no injuries other than those resulting from her fall . This decision was not appealed against .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings requesting contact with his daughter .

On DATE the applicant modified his claims , requesting the award of a residence order regarding his daughter .

DATE and DATE TIME court hearings were scheduled . CARDINAL of them were postponed because the defendants or their lawyers failed to appear or requested additional time to make copies of the case file or to prepare their case . CARDINAL hearings were postponed because both parties or their lawyers failed to appear .

In DATE the defendants did not appear at CARDINAL subsequent hearings for various reasons . On DATE ORG decided to consider the case in the defendants’ absence finding no serious reason to justify such absence , and found in favour of the applicant .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration . The court noted that on DATE the defendants had requested the postponement of the hearing because their lawyer was ill and the first - instance court had disregarded this request in breach of LAW .

DATE and DATE QUANTITY hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which was postponed because the parties failed to appear .

On DATE the Artemivskyy District Court found for the applicant and held that his daughter should live with him . According to the medical reports referred to by the court , since DATE the child had had consultations with a neuropathologist and had been diagnosed with a number of nervous system disorders which had a prenatal origin . However , during DATE the child ’s mental and emotional health had improved and her condition was now stable . Therefore , the court concluded that there was no threat that the child ’s health would worsen because of a change of home . Moreover , it was considered that the absence of contact with her father might aggravate the child ’s health problems .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that these decisions were appealed against in cassation and by DATE the case was pending before ORG of GPE . The decision of DATE became enforceable and there is no evidence that the defendants requested that its enforcement be postponed pending the cassation proceedings . No further information about these proceedings and about the current place of residence of the applicant ’s daughter was provided by the parties .

NORP The parents enjoy preferential right for their minor child to live with them .

NORP The parents have the right to demand taking a minor child from any person who keeps him / her not in accordance with law or judicial decision .

The court may refuse to remove a minor child and to give him / her to the parents or CARDINAL of them if it is established that this is contrary to the child ’s interest . ”


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr Th . PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

In DATE the applicant was appointed a public notary in GPE . He specialised in contracts for the sale of cars .

In DATE disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant for not having paid to the notaries ' association ( simvoleografikos sillogos ) of GPE , GPE , the LOC and the NORP PERCENT of the fees he had received from contracts for the sale of cars and motorbikes DATE and DATE . According to the disciplinary charges the applicant had acted contrary to LAW .

The applicant appeared before the CARDINAL - member Disciplinary Tribunal constituted within ORG Pendameles Pitharhiko Dikastirio tou Efetiou ) of GPE on DATE . He argued , inter alia , that the obligation to pay PERCENT of his fees to the association amounted to a confiscation .

In a decision issued on the same date the disciplinary tribunal found that the obligation in question constituted a legitimate restriction of professional liberty . It also found that the applicant had indeed failed to pay to the notaries ' association PERCENT of the fees ( which amounted to CARDINAL CARDINAL MONEY ) he had received in connection with the sale of cars and motorbikes during the period in question . As a result , the tribunal decided , by majority , to strike the applicant out of the roll of the association .

On DATE the applicant , who could not any longer practise as a public notary , appealed on points of law . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) rejected his appeal . ORG considered that the limitation on professional freedom introduced by LAW was justified in the public interest since its aim was to introduce a measure of fairness in the distribution of the earnings from the particular category of sales among the public notaries . It also considered that all public notaries were treated equally since they were subject to the same obligation . The applicant obtained a copy of the relevant decision on DATE .

In DATE and DATE , ORG had instituted proceedings against the applicant for the same offence , namely his refusal to pay different sums for the periods DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The CARDINAL - members ORG had suspended his right to practise for DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Law CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ In case of preliminary or final contracts for the transfer of the property of cars or motorcycles , the public notary is obliged to deposit to the notaries ' association or the authorised public notary , for allocation between all public notaries with registered offices in the regions stated in DATE ... PERCENT of his fees . ”

According to the established case - law of the courts , the above - mentioned provision does not impose on the public notaries different obligations for the drawing up of the same kind of contracts . It simply restricts the rights of all public notaries for the drawing up of a certain category of contracts . Moreover , that provision does not obstruct the free economic activity and free choice or practice of the profession of public notary , nor does it restrict their financial liberty . The obligation to pay PERCENT of the gross earnings is justified by the aim pursued by that provision , namely to avoid that all contracts are drawn up by a small number of privileged public notaries who may have a great number of acquaintances ( Judgment of ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON no DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

It transpires from Articles CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL that public notaries are always entitled to a fee when they draw up contracts , with the exception of deeds in which the contracting parties are the ORG , co - operatives and public law corporations . In such cases , the public notary is obliged to reimburse the collected fees within DATE to the notaries ' association which distribute them among its members in accordance with LAW . That provision , which applies specifically to “ state ” contracts aims at preventing certain public notaries from taking advantage of their acquaintances and influence and thus monopolising the drawing up of contracts involving high amounts of money .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant is a self - employed entrepreneur . He owns a meat processing business . In that capacity he had dealings with a ORG - owned enterprise , ORG , and in particular with CARDINAL of its branch offices .

NORP In DATE the applicant brought several actions against the branch office in ORG súd ) , ORG ( PERSON súd ) and ORG . He submitted that the defendant owed him money and sought repayment .

The applicant ’s actions were examined in summary proceedings and resulted in the making of a series of payment orders ( platobný rozkaz ) in DATE . The defendant was ordered to pay the applicant a total of CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) accompanied by late - payment penalties . The orders were later certified as enforceable as from DATE .

Having been unable to recover any part of his claim , the applicant filed an insolvency petition against ORG The insolvency proceedings are a separate subject - matter of the present application and they are described in detail below .

T. subsequently went thought the process of privatisation . It was dissolved on DATE by a decision of its founder , ORG , and all its assets ( “ the privatised assets ” ) were transferred to ORG ( Fond národného majetku – “ FNM ” ) .

On DATE T. was struck off the register of companies and legally ceased to exist .

On DATE ORG sold the privatised assets to a private limited company S. As a result of this sale , under LAW of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , all liabilities associated with the privatised assets , including the applicant ’s claims , were transferred to S. The latter acknowledged having assumed such liabilities in a letter of DATE .

On DATE rescinded the privatisation agreement because it was unable to pay the purchase price . As a result , all liabilities associated with the privatised assets , including the applicant ’s claims , were transferred back to ORG . S. subsequently ceased commercial operations and was eventually struck off the register of companies .

NORP In DATE the applicant submitted his claim to ORG . He observed that at that time ORG held the privatised assets and considered , therefore , that ORG had also assumed the liabilities associated with these assets and was liable to satisfy the applicant ’s claim . The applicant reiterated the claim in DATE and DATE , but to no avail .

On DATE the applicant commissioned a judicial enforcement officer to enforce the payment orders of DATE .

On DATE ORG sold the privatised assets to another private limited company P - I. The liabilities associated with the privatised assets were thus transferred to P - I. which acknowledged having assumed the liabilities in a letter to the applicant of DATE . However , in order to determine their scope , P - I. requested the applicant to provide a detailed summary of his claims .

On DATE ORG authorised the enforcement of the payment orders of DATE against P - I.

On DATE P - I. decided to dissolve the company , to establish CARDINAL new private limited companies , PERSON and to divide the assets of ORG . between the new companies . The debt in respect of the applicant was transferred to company ORG - I. was subsequently struck off the register of companies .

The applicant challenged the decision to dissolve P - I. and to divide up its assets by way of a civil action against P. and PERSON The action is a separate subject - matter of the present application and is described in detail below .

On DATE the enforcement officer issued an order to freeze the real property of PERSON with a view to enforcing the amounts owed to the applicant .

In DATE the payment orders of DATE were quashed . The quashing was upheld on the applicant ’s appeals in DATE and DATE . It was held that both the applicant ’s actions and the payment orders had incorrectly identified the applicant ’s debtor as the branch office of T. whereas branch offices had no distinct legal personality and could not be sued .

As a result of the quashing the enforcement proceedings against companies P - I. and PERSON were discontinued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .

In DATE the applicant ’s wife committed suicide .

On DATE ORG dismissed a petition by a creditor to declare company LOC insolvent on the ground that the company had no assets . The company was subsequently struck off the register .

On DATE company P. was declared insolvent . The insolvency proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant lodged his insolvency petition against T. in ORG .

On DATE ORG requested the debtor to convene a meeting of creditors in accordance with LAW .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG requested ORG opinion as to the implications of the insolvency petition on the process of ORG ’s privatisation . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG expressed the view that as long as T. had not been declared insolvent , which was the case , there were no legal obstacles under the insolvency rules to privatisation .

On DATE T. informed ORG that all of its assets had been transferred to S. On DATE S. informed ORG that the privatised assets had been transferred back to ORG as a result of its decision to rescind the privatisation agreement .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to provide information about the current situation concerning the privatised assets . ORG responded on DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG informed the applicant in reply to his complaint that the reason why the matter had not yet been concluded was the heavy workload of judges .

On DATE ORG again requested ORG to provide information about the current situation concerning the privatised assets . ORG responded on DATE .

On DATE ORG requested the applicant and his lawyer to specify the entity which was the defendant in the proceedings in view of the privatisation of ORG and the restructuring of P - I. In the absence of any response ORG reiterated the request on DATE .

On DATE ORG discontinued the insolvency proceedings on the ground that despite repeated requests the applicant had failed to specify which entity was the defendant . The applicant did not appeal and the decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed an action challenging the decision of DATE concerning the dissolution of P - I. and the creation of CARDINAL new companies . The applicant also challenged the relevant entries in the register of companies and sought an interim measure staying the enforcement proceedings against PERSON in a different matter .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings under LAW ( d ) of LAW pending the outcome of the insolvency proceedings concerning PERSON The proceedings are still pending .


Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE opened an inquiry following a complaint by the director of the local telephone service that the applicant had been harassing him and other employees by making offensive statements and allegations that his telephone had been tapped .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant ’s children complained about her father ’s aggressive behaviour and requested that he be examined by a psychiatrist . She later made a further complaint in writing , stating that the applicant had beaten her . She enclosed a medical certificate as proof of this .

DATE and DATE the local police department collected written statements from employees of the telephone service , the applicant ’s daughter , his wife and neighbours .

ORG in GPE requested the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination on DATE . The applicant did not comply with the request .

On DATE a prosecutor ordered the applicant ’s forced psychiatric examination and instructed the police to arrest him and bring him to the local mental health centre . These instructions did not refer to the length of time the applicant ’s confinement was to last .

The applicant was not informed of the above decisions .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and brought to the GPE mental health centre . On DATE , after a short examination , he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital .

It transpires from a letter written in DATE by the director of the hospital concerning the complaints which the applicant lodged with the ORG that the hospital administration believed that the prosecutor had ordered that the applicant was to be confined for DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a written complaint to the hospital administration requesting his release . He also complained orally that his detention was unlawful and , on CARDINAL occasion , asked for a lawyer .

On DATE the applicant was discharged . He attended voluntarily an examination held on DATE but did not turn up when invited for another examination on DATE .

On DATE the psychiatric hospital forwarded to ORG the ORG opinion on the applicant ’s mental condition . The doctors noted in their opinion that the applicant was suffering from certain disorders , but concluded that the need to subject the applicant to compulsory psychiatric treatment should be decided by the competent court following a fresh assessment of his mental condition .

On DATE the prosecution authorities submitted to ORG a request for the applicant ’s compulsory psychiatric treatment under LAW of LAW . On DATE the proceedings were terminated .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant complained to GPE about his arrest and detention as well as about the behaviour of the police officers involved in these measures .

On DATE the applicant filed complaints with ORG and with the Minister of the ORG in which he described the events surrounding his arrest and subsequent detention in the psychiatric clinic . The applicant maintained that the authorities had acted unlawfully . By letter of DATE the Third ORG in GPE , to which ORG had transmitted the applicant ’s complaints , replied that the police officers involved had acted pursuant to the order of a prosecutor order and , therefore , lawfully . In reply to the applicant ’s request for further information , the same police department , in a letter of DATE , stated that the police had acted lawfully in accordance with the order of a prosecutor .

According to section QUANTITY read in conjunction with sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , a mentally ill person can be committed to compulsory psychiatric treatment by a decision of a district court .

The relevant judicial proceedings are instituted by a district prosecutor who is obliged to undertake a prior inquiry , including the ordering of a psychiatric examination , in order to assess the need for instituting proceedings . The prosecutor would therefore normally invite the person concerned to undergo a psychiatric examination in the framework of his inquiry .

LAW , as in force at the relevant time , did not contain any provision authorising a prosecutor to order that a person be brought by force to a hospital and be detained there for the purposes of a psychiatric examination .

In DATE section QUANTITY of LAW was amended . According to the new provisions a prosecutor , in the framework of an inquiry , can order a person ’s confinement in a psychiatric hospital for the purposes of his medical examination if that person has refused to submit himself voluntarily to such an examination . The prosecutor is not obliged to seek a medical opinion before making a confinement order .

The relevant law – even after the DATE amendment and at the time of the adoption of this judgment – does not provide for an appeal to a court in cases of persons who are detained for an examination in the framework of a district prosecutor ’s inquiry .


CASE OF DEREVENKO AND DOVGALYUK v. UKRAINE

On DATE the first applicant obtained a judgment of ORG ( PERSON районний суд PERSON області ) against the ORG “ PERSON ” ( ORG “ GPE ) , awarding him CARDINAL hryvnyas ( ORG ) in salary arrears and other payments .

On DATE the second applicant obtained a judgment of ORG ( NORP міський суд GPE області ) against the ORG “ ATP-CARDINAL ” ( ORG ) , awarding him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in salary arrears .

These judgments were not appealed against , became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgments debts .

On several occasions the bailiffs notified the applicants that they were unable to collect the full amounts of the awards , referring to the fact that financial assets of the debtor - companies were insufficient . They further explained that other assets could not be sold , as the ORG owned PERCENT of the debtor - companies ' share capital . The companies were therefore subject to LAW DATE “ on the LAW of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property ” . The first applicant attempted to challenge the alleged inactivity of the bailiffs and to institute criminal proceedings against the debtor - company 's chief executive officer , however , his attempts were to no avail .

By DATE and CARDINAL DATE the judgments given in favour of the second and the first applicant , respectively , were enforced in full .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the city of GPE .

In DATE the Poltava ORG ( hereinafter DATE the ORG ) instituted criminal proceedings for tax evasion against PERSON , who is , respectively , the son of the first applicant and the brother of the second applicant . On DATE the investigator placed PERSON under an obligation not to abscond .

On DATE , following the failure of PERSON to appear for interrogation and in the absence of information about his whereabouts , an arrest warrant for PERSON was issued .

On DATE the ORG investigator issued an order for interception and seizure of the postal and telegraphic correspondence of the applicants ( hereinafter DATE “ the interception order ” ) on the following grounds :

“ The private entrepreneur PERSON , during the period DATE and DATE , intentionally did not pay taxes to the ORG budget in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , having caused damage and substantial losses to the ORG .

On DATE the preventive measure – obligation not to abscond – was ordered in respect of PERSON , but , having been summoned by the investigator , PERSON did not come to him , and his whereabouts at the present are unknown . On DATE the preventive measure – detention – was ordered in respect of PERSON

... PERSON may inform his mother and brother about his whereabouts , using the postal and telegraphic correspondence . ”

No time - limit for the interception had been fixed in the order .

On DATE the President of ORG approved the interception order by having signed it . The applicants maintained that they had learned about this order by chance at DATE .

On DATE the criminal case against PERSON was terminated as being time - barred .

According to the applicants , PERSON had appeared in DATE and met with the investigator in his case . During this meeting he found out about the interception order .

On DATE the ORG investigator cancelled the interception order on the grounds that the criminal case against PERSON had been closed and there were no further need to intercept the ORG correspondence . This cancellation was approved and signed by the President of ORG DATE .

NORP By letter of DATE , ORG , in reply to their complaint , informed the applicants that the interception of their correspondence had been ordered lawfully and therefore the law - enforcement officers incurred no liability .

On DATE , according to the Government , the whereabouts of PERSON were established by the investigation .

NORP By letter of DATE to PERSON , in reply to his complaints about the criminal proceedings against him , ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) noted , inter alia , that the interception order was not well - founded .

NORP By letter of DATE , the first applicant was informed that on DATE ( DATE according to the Government ) a letter addressed to her had been intercepted by the police but , as it contained no information about the whereabouts of PERSON , it was not seized but was forwarded to her .

On DATE the applicants claimed compensation from the Head of the PRPD for the damage caused by ordering the interception of their correspondence .

By letter of DATE , the Head of the ORG informed the second applicant that the interception order had been lawful and that , therefore , there were no grounds to award damages .

By letter of DATE , the Head of the ORG informed the second applicant that the seizure of correspondence had been in compliance with the law and that the applicant had no right to compensation , given that the criminal case against his brother had been terminated on non - exonerative grounds .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the second applicant that the issue of compensation was within the competence of the courts .

On DATE the applicants lodged a claim with the NORP ORG of PERSON against the ORG seeking compensation for the moral damage caused by the interference with their correspondence . In support of their claim , they referred to the letter of the ORG of DATE , where it was acknowledged that the interception order lacked grounds .

On DATE the ORG found against the applicants . The court concluded that the interception order had been lawful and well - founded , the criminal proceedings against Mr V. having been terminated on non - exonerative grounds ( нереабілітуючі обставини ) , and that the applicants did not prove that they had suffered any moral damage due to the interference with their correspondence . The court held that the applicants’ claim was unsubstantiated and that the ORG ’s letter of DATE could not be a ground for awarding them any damages . It , therefore , rejected the ORG claim in full .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court .

On DATE the panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the ORG request for leave to appeal in cassation .

The relevant extracts of LAW ( first published in the PERSON of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE of DATE , No . CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) read as follows :

DATE

“ Everyone shall be guaranteed privacy of mail , telephone conversations , telegraph and other correspondence . Exceptions shall be established only by a court in cases envisaged by law , with the purpose of preventing crime or ascertaining the truth in the course of the investigation of a criminal case , if it is not possible to obtain information by other means . ”

“ Human and ORG rights and freedoms shall be protected by the courts .

Everyone shall be guaranteed a right to challenge in court the decisions , actions or omissions of bodies of ORG power , bodies of local self - government , officials and officers . ...

Everyone shall have a right to protect his or her rights and freedoms from violations and illegal encroachments by any means not prohibited by law . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Everyone shall have a right to compensation from public or municipal bodies for losses sustained as a result of unlawful decisions , acts or omissions by public or municipal bodies or civil servants in the performance of their official duties . ”

“ CARDINAL . The existing procedure for the arrest , custody and detention of persons suspected of committing an offence , and the procedure for carrying out an examination and search of a person ’s home and other property , shall be retained for DATE after the entry into force of the present LAW . ”

At the material time LAW in the wording of QUANTITY DATE ( the relevant LAW Law first published in the Gazette of the Verkhovna Rada of the NORP SSR , DATE , No . CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ The interception of correspondence and its seizure in postal and telegraphic establishments shall be conducted with the approval of the prosecutor or his deputy , or upon the resolution of a court .

The investigator shall issue an order for interception and seizure of postal and telegraphic correspondence . In that order , the investigator shall propose that a postal and telegraphic establishment intercept the correspondence defined in the order and inform him about it . The examination of correspondence shall be conducted in the presence of CARDINAL representatives of the post office , and TIME are drawn up to this end .

The interception of correspondence shall be cancelled by an order of the investigator , when the application of this measure is no longer required . ”

( This Article was substantially re - worded in DATE )

The relevant provisions of the PERSON ( first published in the official newspaper “ PERSON Ukrainy ” , DATE , No . CARDINAL ) provided as relevant :

“ The grounds for conduct of the search and seizure activities are :

CARDINAL ) presence of sufficient information , about ...

- persons who are preparing or have committed a crime ;

- persons who are hiding from the investigative bodies , court or are evading the application of criminal sanctions ; ...

It is prohibited to make decisions on the conduct of search and seizure activities for other purposes than the ones established by this Article . ”

“ Operational units when executing their tasks in connection with operational searches ( ... ) have the following rights :

CARDINAL ) to survey selectively , in accordance with particular characteristics , telegraphic and postal correspondence . ”

Article CARDINAL

Guarantees of lawfulness during the conduct of search and seizure activities

“ ... During the search and seizure activities violation of rights and freedoms of individuals and legal persons shall not be allowed . Any limitation of these rights and freedoms shall be of an exceptional and temporary nature ... in the situations stipulated by the legislation of GPE with the aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons , the safety of the society ...

During the search and seizure activities , officers of the operational units shall be obliged to take into account their proportionality to the level of social danger of criminal attempts and the danger to the interests of the society and the ORG .

In case of violation of rights and freedoms of individuals and legal persons ... ORG ... shall restore the violated rights and compensate for the material and moral damage which had occurred . ”

The relevant provisions of the PERSON ( first published in the PERSON of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE of DATE , No . CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) read as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ Under the provisions of this PERSON a citizen is entitled to compensation for damages caused by :

... CARDINAL ) unlawful conduct of search and seizure activities ...

Article CARDINAL

“ The right to compensation for damages in the amount of and in accordance with the procedure established by this PERSON shall arise in cases of :

acquittal by a court ;

the termination of a criminal case on grounds of the absence of proof of the commission of a crime , the absence of corpus delicti , or a lack of evidence of the accused ’s participation in the commission of the crime ;

the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings or the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds stipulated in sub - paragraph CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of this Article ;

the termination of proceedings for an administrative offence . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ In the cases referred to in LAW the applicant shall be compensated for ...

CARDINAL ) moral damage . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ... Compensation for moral damage shall be given in cases in which unlawful actions of bodies of inquiry , pre - trial investigation , prosecutors and courts caused moral losses to a citizen , led to disruption of his usual life relations and required additional efforts for organisation of his or her life .

The moral damage shall be considered suffering caused to a citizen due to physical or psychological influence which led to deterioration or deprivation of possibilities to follow his or her usual habits and wishes , deterioration of relations with people around , other negative impacts of moral nature . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national who was born in PERSON in DATE and lives in PERSON , the GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , Mrs A. ORG , PERSON , of ORG .

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

The applicant works as a lorry driver .

On DATE he failed , in an inspection by an agent of ORG ( ORG für GPE – hereinafter called ORG ) , to present documentation as to whether he had driven his lorry DATE and DATE . The protocol of that inspection was drawn up in NORP , contained the applicant ’s comments and was signed by him . The protocol further noted that he had paid a security ( PERSON ) of CARDINAL NORP Guilders .

On DATE ORG issued a regulatory fine order ( ORG ) against the applicant , stating that he had committed a regulatory offence ( PERSON ) . It held that the applicant had violated section CARDINAL no . CARDINAL ( a ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) sentence CARDINAL of the crew regulations ( GPE ) .

ORG imposed a fine of CARDINAL Deutschmarks ( DATE ) .

The applicant was served the regulatory fine order on DATE . The fine order was written in NORP and included an instruction about his available legal remedies ( PERSON ) in NORP . According to that note the applicant had the right to lodge an objection with ORG within DATE after the serving of the decision .

On DATE the applicant took notice of the regulatory fine order and sent it to his legal insurance company ( Rechtsschutzversicherung ) afterwards .

The latter received the fine order on DATE and forwarded the regulatory fine order to the applicant ’s legal counsel on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s legal counsel received the regulatory fine order and accompanying documents and lodged an objection with ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the legal counsel that the objection had been lodged outside the statutory time - limit .

On DATE the legal counsel requested the reinstatement of the proceedings ( Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand ) . He argued that according to the general terms and conditions of the legal insurance company the applicant had been required to send the regulatory fine order first to the insurance company instead of sending it directly to his legal counsel . Hence he could not be held responsible for the time it took ORG to deliver his mail . The applicant submitted an according affirmation in lieu of an oath , but he presented neither a copy of the general terms and conditions of his legal insurance company nor any proof for the actual period of time it had taken his letter to reach his legal insurance company .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s objection as inadmissible for having been lodged out of time . Furthermore , ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for reinstatement of proceedings . It held that the period of time for the delivery of his mail was contrary to all life experience and that the general terms and conditions of his legal insurance company did not justify the delay .

On DATE the applicant requested the review by court ( Antrag auf gerichtliche GPE ) . Invoking LAW ( a ) of the LAW , the applicant argued that the regulatory fine order should have been served in a language he understood . Therefore , the decision had not been effectively served ( wirksam zugestellt ) . In this respect the applicant referred to instruction no . CARDINAL of the “ Instructions on Criminal Procedure and Administrative Fine Procedures ” ( PERSON das Straf- PERSON ) which stipulates that if the recipient does not have a sufficient knowledge of the NORP language , all documents have to be served with a translation into a language he understands ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . Furthermore , the applicant drew the court ’s attention to the decision of the ORG decision of DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below . )

On DATE the GPE ORG confirmed ORG decision for the following reasons . It held that ORG had not been obliged to provide a translation of its regulatory fine order and the instructions about the available legal remedies , because LAW ( a ) of the LAW was only applicable to criminal proceedings . It denied its applicability to proceedings relating to regulatory offences ( PERSON - widrigkeitenverfahren ) . Furthermore , the court recalled that an affirmation in lieu of an oath was not sufficient in such proceedings , because it could only be qualified as a simple declaration .

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG arguing that his right to be heard by a court ( LAW had been infringed , because he had not been granted reinstatement of the proceedings . The applicant repeated that LAW ( a ) of the LAW had been applicable to his case .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint without providing any reasoning .

“ No . CARDINAL

I ...

ORG , arrest warrants , penal orders and other court decisions are to be served to a foreigner , if he does not have sufficient knowledge of the NORP language , with a translation into a language he understands . ...

No . CARDINAL

Nos . CARDINAL through CARDINAL apply analogously to administrative fine proceedings “

Section CARDINAL

“ If a person was prevented from observing a time - limit through no fault of his own , he shall be granted reinstatement of the proceedings upon his motion . ...

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) The motion for reinstatement of the proceedings shall be filed with the court at which the time - limit should have been observed , within DATE after the reason for non - compliance no longer applies . To observe that time - limit it is sufficient to file the motion in a timely fashion with the court that will decide on that motion .

( CARDINAL ) The facts justifying the motion shall be demonstrated ( glaubhaft machen ) at the time the motion is filed or during the proceedings upon that motion . The omitted act shall subsequently be undertaken within the time limit for filing the motion . Where this is done , reinstatement may also be granted without an application being filed . ”

In its decision ( see no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Decisions of ORG ) , vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) ORG dealt with the following case . A NORP national , who could neither read nor write NORP , was served a penal order . It included instructions about his available legal remedies written in NORP . Having problems finding a translator , he missed the statutory time - limit for lodging an objection . His request for reinstatement of the proceedings was rejected . ORG held that the applicant ’s right to be heard under LAW had been violated . It found that the applicant , lacking sufficient knowledge of the NORP language , had been unaware of the statutory time - limit for lodging an objection . Therefore , his lack of understanding of the instructions about his available legal remedies was the reason for missing the time - limit . It followed that the applicant had to be treated as if he had never received instructions about his available legal remedies . ORG concluded that as a consequence for future cases , reinstatement has to be granted , if the recipient of a penal order ( PERSON ) or a regulatory fine order missed the time - limit for lodging an objection , because he did not understand the instructions about his available legal remedies .


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

ORG Mr PERSON , a retired industrialist of NORP nationality , lives in PERSON ) . His sisters , PERSON and PERSON , live respectively in GPE and GPE .

ORG The applicants held between them CARDINAL shares in the ORG immobilière du ORG , a company under NORP law whose sole asset was an agricultural estate of QUANTITY in the NORP province of PERSON and whose share capital comprised CARDINAL shares . They further owned almost all of the share capital of the ORG foncière du ORG , a non - trading company ( société civile ) under NORP law , which itself owned CARDINAL shares in the NORP company in addition to a building in GPE .

ORG Under a dahir ( royal decree ) of DATE ORG nationalised agricultural land belonging to foreigners .

ORG On DATE , following negotiations , the NORP and NORP Governments concluded a LAW with a view to making provision for the financial consequences of the nationalisation of NORP ORG assets . The following provisions are relevant to the instant case :

" The NORP Government shall pay the NORP Government compensation in a single lump sum and the NORP Government shall be responsible for apportioning that sum among the beneficiaries of this LAW .

The beneficiaries shall be natural persons of NORP nationality who are individual or joint landowners or members of partnerships or companies , or who suffered the consequences of the dahir of DATE in any other capacity . "

" The NORP Government shall be responsible for apportioning the compensation provided for in this LAW . ... "

" With effect from the signature of this LAW , each Government undertakes , subject to the other ORG ’s compliance with their obligations under LAW , to refrain from submitting to the other Government or to an arbitral tribunal or a court any claims made by their nationals in respect of the assets , rights and interests referred to in LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this LAW or from supporting such claims . "

A decree of DATE promulgated the text of the agreement and charged the Prime Minister and the Minister for ORG with implementing it .

ORG Under a decree of DATE a committee responsible for apportioning the NORP indemnity was set up . Article CARDINAL of the decree provided :

" The committee shall comprise

( a ) a representative of ORG , who shall chair the committee ;

( b ) a representative of ORG ;

( c ) a representative of ORG ; and

( d ) a representative of ORG .

The Chairman and members of the committee shall be appointed by order of the Minister for ORG .

Decisions shall be taken by a majority . The Chairman shall have a casting vote . "

ORG In a decision of DATE , notified on DATE , the committee awarded the applicants , as natural persons , compensation solely in respect of the shares they owned directly in the ORG immobilière du ORG , i.e. CARDINAL shares in Mr PERSON ’s case and CARDINAL shares in the case of each of his sisters . On the other hand , pursuant to the second paragraph of LAW , it refused to pay them compensation in their capacity as majority shareholders of the ORG foncière du ORG .

ORG On DATE the applicants challenged this decision in ORG . The grounds for their application were set out in a memorial filed on DATE . They complained that the committee had determined the compensation to be awarded in respect of the NORP property company ’s agricultural estate solely on the basis of the shares they held in that company in their own names , without taking into consideration the shares they owned in the NORP property company .

The Minister for ORG , the respondent in the proceedings , submitted his observations in reply on DATE .

ORG In an order of CARDINAL DATE the Vice - President of ORG held that the dispute fell outside that court ’s jurisdiction and forwarded the application and the file to the ORG d’Etat .

ORG The Minister for ORG filed observations on DATE .

ORG On DATE the ORG d’Etat deferred its decision on the application until the authority empowered to interpret the LAW had given its opinion . It gave the following reasons :

" The outcome of this dispute depends on whether , under LAW [ CARDINAL of the Franco - Moroccan Protocol ] , natural persons are entitled to claim compensation solely as members of partnerships or companies that were the direct owners of assets conferring a right to compensation under the above - mentioned LAW or whether they are also entitled to do so as shareholders of companies themselves members of the partnerships or companies which owned such assets . The outcome of the dispute is accordingly contingent on the interpretation of the LAW . The LAW is an international agreement and its meaning is unclear . Consequently , only the Minister for ORG is competent to interpret it . "

ORG In a note of CARDINAL DATE the Minister replied that the LAW in question " was not ... intended to cover natural persons holding shares in companies which themselves were members of the partnerships or companies that owned the assets conferring a right to compensation " , with the result that the applicants were not entitled to compensation under LAW .

ORG On DATE the applicants filed further submissions , in which they argued that , if the ORG d’Etat considered itself bound by the minister ’s interpretation , such a decision would entail a violation of LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

The respondent filed submissions on DATE .

ORG In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d’Etat dismissed the application on the following ground : " The interpretation given by the Minister for ORG is binding on the PERSON d’Etat which can only draw the legal conclusions which follow from it . "

ORG Since DATE ( see the Veuve Murat , ORG , judgment of DATE , PERSON du ORG d’Etat [ Reports of the judgments of the ORG d’Etat ] , p. CARDINAL ) the PERSON d’Etat had held that the interpretation of international treaties fell outside the scope of its judicial functions . When confronted with provisions that it considered insufficiently clear - except for Community legislation , the interpretation of which is governed by LAW - it relied on the official interpretation given by the Minister for ORG . It deemed that interpretation to be a prerogative act that could not be dissociated from international relations , had binding force and was not open to challenge in the courts ( see the full court ’s judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and ORG , PERSON du ORG d’Etat , p. CARDINAL , GPE DATE , III , p. CARDINAL ) .

ORG On DATE the ORG d’Etat , sitting as a full court and endorsing the submissions of the Commissaire du gouvernement , PERSON , delivered a judgment relating to the conditions of circulation , residence and employment of NORP nationals and their families in GPE ( G.I.S.T.I. judgment , GPE des arrêts du ORG d’Etat , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON juridique . ORG administratif DATE , p. CARDINAL ; Revue générale de droit international public DATE , p. CARDINAL ; Revue française de droit administratif DATE , p. CARDINAL , with a note by Mr PERSON ; Revue critique de droit international public DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . It discontinued the practice - which had no equivalent in the other member ORG of referring a preliminary question to the minister on the construction of an international treaty containing ambiguous or unclear provisions . It now interprets international agreements itself and , if it seeks the opinion of the executive , it does not regard itself as bound thereby .

ORG Since a judgment of DATE ( Dalloz CARDINAL , part CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , ORG have held that the ordinary courts are entitled to interpret clauses of a treaty " provided that they do not raise issues liable to jeopardise good international relations " ( l’ordre public international ) . Otherwise , if an instrument is unclear they still require the question to be referred to the Minister for ORG ( judgment of DATE , ORG , ORG périodique DATE , part CARDINAL , no . DATE ) .

In ORG the principle of a lack of jurisdiction entailing an obligation to seek a preliminary interpretation continues to apply . With the exception of ORG , " international treaties are measures taken by the highest administrative authorities which can only be interpreted , if necessary , by the authorities which concluded them " ( judgment of DATE , ORG [ ORG law reports ] , no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . The official interpretation is of general application and is binding on the courts ( judgment of DATE , Bulletin des arrêts de la ORG , no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .

On the other hand , ORG recently abandoned the approach of distinguishing between international treaties and now interprets them without seeking to establish whether issues liable to jeopardise good international relations are raised ( ORG autonome mutuelle de retraite des agents des chemins de fer judgment of DATE and submissions filed by ORG , PERSON , ORG , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .