Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , a town in LOC .

Before her removal to PERSON the applicant lived and worked in GPE , a town located in Chukotka , a far - eastern territory adjacent to GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed with the ORG of GPE ( the “ ORG ” ) an action against her former employer , a local trading office . She wanted the defendant to pay outstanding emoluments , discharge and leave allowances , and to properly formalise her discharge .

As the proceedings did not progress , in DATE the applicant complained several times about ORG to a number of higher judicial and other authorities .

On DATE the President of the Judicial Qualifications Board , of GPE ( the “ ORG ” , “ Board ” ) asked the President of ORG to inform him why it took the court so long to deal with the applicant 's case and when the case would be heard .

On DATE the President of the Chukotka Regional Court ( the “ ORG ” ) asked the President of ORG to start the proceedings , to fix a hearing and to inform the applicant about the date of the hearing before DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG forwarded the applicant 's complaint to the President of ORG . He asked to inform him and the applicant about the state of the proceedings before DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG asked the President of ORG to inform the applicant before DATE of the date when her case would be heard . He also informed the applicant that ORG could not deal with her case itself because it was understaffed . The President noted that his earlier requests to ORG had remained unanswered .

On DATE the President of ORG asked the President of ORG to investigate the applicant 's complaint and take measures , if need be .

On DATE the President of ORG asked the President of ORG to inform him before DATE about the state of the proceedings . He noted that the President had not responded to ORG earlier requests to speed up the proceedings . He also warned the President that he would have to apply to a judicial qualifications board if the procrastination continued .

On DATE ORG issued a letter rogatory by which it asked a GPE court to question the applicant . The GPE court could not execute the request because the applicant had not informed the courts that her address had changed .

On DATE the President of ORG informed the applicant that her case could not be examined because ORG was understaffed and overloaded with work .

On DATE the new President of ORG asked the President of ORG to forward to ORG before DATE copies of procedural documents concerning the case . She noted with displeasure that ORG had been ignoring the applicant 's earlier complaints and the ORG 's requests . She also informed the applicant that ORG had been understaffed since DATE , and that it was impossible under the law to sue the court or an individual judge for damage caused by delays in proceedings .

On DATE the President of ORG asked the President of ORG to inform the ORG and the applicant before DATE about the progress of the case . She also asked the President of ORG to submit copies of procedural documents which would prove that the judge responsible for the applicant 's case had prepared the case for a hearing . She also informed the applicant that it was impossible to summon the President of ORG to the regional capital for explanations , because PERSON was located too far away from the capital and because ORG did not receive any financing for such purposes .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG noted that the President of ORG had still not informed the applicant about the progress of her case despite the earlier orders . He asked the President of ORG to provide this information to the applicant immediately .

On DATE the President of ORG informed the applicant that ORG was going to visit ORG because there had been numerous complaints about its inactivity . The visit was fixed for DATE , provided that ORG would have sufficient funds for it .

On DATE the President of ORG asked the President of ORG to verify the applicant 's complaints and to pass them to ORG if they proved to be well - founded .

On DATE ORG passed a first judgment in the applicant 's case by which her claims were granted . The defendant appealed against this judgment .

On DATE the President of ORG asked the President of ORG to investigate the activity of the President of ORG before DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG informed the applicant that ORG would investigate the activity of the President of ORG .

On DATE ORG granted the defendant 's appeal and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG officially reprimanded the judge of ORG responsible for the applicant 's case for breaches of procedural rules . ORG warned the judge that she may be dismissed from service if the breaches re - occurred .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant 's claims in part .

On DATE a public prosecutor of the Shmidtovskiy District appealed on behalf of the defendant .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and ordered a re - hearing of the case .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant claimed from the ORG MONEY as compensation for the delays in the proceedings . On DATE the ORG severed this claim from the main proceedings .

On DATE the Shmidtovskiy Court granted the applicant 's main claims in part .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment in part and passed a new judgment by which the applicant 's claims were partly satisfied .

On DATE ORG closed the proceedings concerning the damage caused by the delays . The court found that there existed no law specifying how such actions should be entertained .

On DATE ORG quashed this decision on the ground that ORG should not have considered an action directed against itself . ORG decided that it will itself determine the court to deal with the action . These proceedings appear to be still pending .

During the proceedings the applicant also made a number of complaints to ORG , ORG , the Government , the ORG and ORG . These authorities either referred her complaints to the judicial authorities of GPE or advised the applicant to do it herself .

Under LAW of DATE ( “ CCivP ” ) in force at the material time , an action must be prepared for trial DATE after the action is lodged . If litigants are not located within the same town or territory , actions between them arising out of labour disputes must be examined by a court of the first instance within DATE .

Under LAW CCivP , an appeal court must examine an appeal DATE after it is filed .

Section CARDINAL of the Law “ On the status of judges in the GPE ” of DATE , in force at the material time , established ORG and qualifications boards of regional courts . The qualifications boards had the power to select candidates for judicial posts , to suspend or remove judges from office , to ensure judges ' inviolability and to certify judges ' professional skills . The functioning and specific powers of the qualifications boards were to be determined in special regulations .

On DATE the ORG passed “ Regulations on Judicial Qualifications Boards ” . The ORG remained in force until DATE when a new law on the same subject was adopted . Under section CARDINAL of the Regulations , a qualifications board could :

“ CARDINAL . ... take a decision concerning the institution of criminal proceedings against a judge ... , the detention of a judge or his bringing to a court ;

warn a judge to stop an activity incompatible with his position ; suspend or terminate a judges ' powers in cases [ established by law ] ;

NORP examine [ complaints ] about a judge 's activity or inactivity undermining the authority of the judicial power ... ”

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Regulations , qualifications boards could receive information , necessary for their functioning , from presidents of courts and other judges , from law - enforcement agencies and other ORG bodies , from non - governmental organisations and public officials .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Regulations , if an application submitted to a qualifications board was within its competence , the board had to deal with it within DATE . DATE after the board gave a decision , an extract from it had to be sent to interested parties .


The applicants , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . They live in GPE and PERSON , respectively . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their agent Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

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

Upon the ORG request ORG sitting as a ORG ( GPE als GPE - und ORG ) on DATE and on DATE , respectively , ordered the F company to pay ( PERSON ) the first applicant CARDINAL ORG , the second applicant CARDINAL ORG and the third applicant CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG . On DATE these orders became enforceable .

On DATE ORG opened bankruptcy proceedings concerning the F company . This decision was published in the bankruptcy data base ( ORG ) in the internet on DATE .

On DATE the applicants requested ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) to enforce the above - mentioned payment orders by selling the F company ’s movable property ( Fahrnisexekution ) and by granting the applicants a lien on outstanding accounts which the F company held against GPE , GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG granted this application and ordered enforcement of the payment orders ( Exekutionsbewilligung ) under Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Exekutionsordnung ) . It appears that ORG apparently disregarded LAW ( see Relevant domestic law and practice ) when it granted this request .

On DATE ORG , GPE and GPE , who were debtors of the F company and against whom that company had outstanding claims , appealed against this decision . They submitted that the enforcement order was unlawful as bankruptcy proceedings against the F company had been opened on DATE and that , following the decision to open bankruptcy proceedings , they were no longer allowed to honour individual request for enforcement . The appeals were not transmitted to the applicants .

At DATE the bankruptcy trustee , referring to LAW ( GPE ) , requested ORG to cancel enforcement proceedings .

With decisions of DATE and DATE respectively , ORG remitted the file back to ORG as it found that the appeals of DATE needed improvement . On CARDINAL and DATE respectively these decisions were served on the applicants’ counsel .

ORG , GPE and GPE subsequently remedied the defects of the appeals . The appeals were not transmitted to the applicants .

With decisions of DATE , DATE and DATE ORG rejected the appeals concerning the enforcement of the order to pay by selling the F company ’s movable property , as it noted that GPE , GPE and GPE had no legal standing in this regard , because they were not affected by that part of the order .

It granted , however , the appeals concerning the enforcement of the order to pay by granting a lien on the F company ’s outstanding accounts against NORP , GPE and GPE It referred in this regard to LAW . The court further noted that , according to relevant case - law and doctrine , it was for the person requesting an enforcement order to substantiate already in the application why enforcement under LAW should be admissible irrespective of the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings . In the present case , the applicants had not made such submissions in their applications . ORG had opened bankruptcy proceedings against the F company on CARDINAL DATE . This decision had been published in the bankruptcy data base ( ORG ) on DATE . The enforcement order had been issued only on DATE and was therefore unlawful . The court further noted that the applicants had filed their request for enforcement of the payment order on DATE , although bankruptcy proceedings had already been pending at this time . It therefore ordered them to reimburse the costs of the appeal proceedings , i.e. CARDINAL ORG to be paid by the first applicant , CARDINAL ORG to be paid by the second applicant , and CARDINAL ORG to be paid by the third applicant .

The enforcement of judicial decisions is regulated by LAW ( Exekutionsordnung ) , which provides for the satisfaction of a pecuniary claim by seizure of individual assets of the debtor ( ORG ) .

However , after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor , individual satisfaction of a creditor gives way to collective satisfaction on a quota basis of all creditors with pecuniary claims ( Generalexekution ) . The execution of an individual claim under LAW is in principle no longer possible .

Accordingly , LAW stipulates that , after the commencement of bankruptcy , no right to a lien or to a payment may be obtained from a court in respect of assets forming the bankrupt ’s estate on account of a claim against the bankrupt . According to LAW , bankruptcy shall take effect from DATE following its official publication .


CASE OF KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG (no. 2) v. AUSTRIA

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant company is the publisher of a newspaper ( PERSON ) with its registered office in GPE .

In DATE the PERSON published several articles on a case of parents , Ms and Mr K. who had abused their daughter . In the articles it was alleged that they had homo - bisexual inclinations . Subsequently PERSON filed a compensation claim under LAW ( Mediengesetz ) with ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) against the applicant company .

On DATE the court ordered the applicant company under Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW to publish a notice concerning the institution of the proceedings . On DATE this notice was published in the Neue Kronenzeitung .

On DATE and DATE PERSON filed enforcement requests ( PERSON ) under LAW of LAW against the applicant company . Referring to LAW of LAW , requiring a notice of the same “ publishing value ” ( PERSON ) as the original message , she argued that the notice of CARDINAL DATE was smaller than the articles of DATE and was , thus , not published in due form .

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON request . The court found that the notice of DATE , though somewhat smaller , had the same “ attention value ” ( PERSON ) and , thus , the same “ publishing value ” as the articles .

With ORG ( GPE ) decision of DATE the compensation proceedings were finally determined . The court ordered the applicant company to pay ORG CARDINAL in compensation to Ms K. for breach of the presumption of innocence in its reporting about PERSON and to publish the sentence . The applicant company complied with these orders .

On DATE ORG , upon PERSON appeal , quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the applicant company to pay a coercive indemnity ( PERSON ) of ATS CARDINAL,CARDINAL to PERSON , namely ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for each issue of the newspaper CARDINAL . The court considered that , in one of the disputed articles , PERSON had been defamed even in a subtitle , whereas the notice had no subtitle . Therefore the “ publishing value ” was diminished .

Following this decision , PERSON filed further enforcement requests for the period of DATE until DATE .

On DATE the applicant company requested that Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW be applied by analogy . This provision allowed for an exemption from the imposition of coercive indemnity for the duration of appeal proceedings in case a first - instance court had imposed a coercive indemnity for an inappropriate publication of the notice - which , however , had been published in a manner close to the due form - and the respondent had appealed against this decision . The applicant company argued that after the first - instance court 's decision in its favour , finding that the notice had the same publishing value , it had not been required to publish another notice . Therefore the above rule of exemption from imposition of coercive indemnity during the appeal proceedings applied even more in its case . The applicant company further requested that LAW CARDINAL of LAW - which , in cases of special circumstances , allows the authority to stop or remit the imposition of coercive indemnity , once the notice has been published in due form - be applied for DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to pay ORG CARDINAL to Ms K. , namely ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for each issue of the GPE between DATE and DATE , the date of the introduction of PERSON appeal against the decision of DATE . It dismissed the remainder of PERSON request and the applicant company 's request under LAW of LAW . The court found that LAW of LAW applied by analogy for the period of the appeal proceedings , therefore no coercive indemnity had to be paid from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG , on both parties ' appeal , quashed ORG decision in part . It decided that the applicant company had to pay a coercive indemnity of ORG CARDINAL to PERSON , i.e. ORG CARDINAL for each issue of the newspaper DATE and DATE . The court considered that the applicant company could not be exempted from paying the coercive indemnity for the period of the appeal proceedings , as the notice of CARDINAL DATE had not come close to a notice in due form as required by LAW of LAW .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) lodged a plea of nullity for the preservation of the law ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes ) with ORG . It argued that the coercive indemnity under LAW of LAW was a coercive measure ( Beugemittel ) . According to ORG , it was unreasonable to impose a coercive indemnity for the period after the first instance court 's decision of DATE , since after that decision the applicant company was to be considered as having acted in good faith when it did not publish another notice . The coercive indemnity should therefore only be imposed for the period before DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the plea of nullity . It argued that the question of good faith could not be resolved under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW . Rather , the applicant company would have to commence indulgence proceedings ( PERSON ) under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW . In such proceedings , its particular situation after the first instance decision of DATE could be taken into account .

In compensation proceedings under LAW , the court shall order the media company concerned to publish a short notice about the institution of the case , if it may be assumed that the compensation claim is well founded ( LAW CARDINAL ) .

This notice has to have the same “ publishing value ” ( ORG ) as the publication to which it refers ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

NORP If the notice was not published in due form , the plaintiff may request the court to impose a coercive indemnity on the respondent for each issue in which the notice could have been duly published , with sums of up to ATS CARDINAL per issue ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Once the notice has been duly published , the coercive indemnity may be stopped or remitted on request by the respondent in cases of special circumstances ( in berücksichtigungswürdigen NORP ) ( LAW ) .

The parties have a right to appeal to ORG against decisions imposing or remitting a coercive indemnity . In the event a coercive indemnity has been imposed for inappropriate publication of the notice and the respondent has appealed against this decision , no further coercive indemnity shall be imposed for the duration of the appeal proceedings , if the notice - whose proper publication is litigious - was published in a manner coming close to the due form ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .


ISLAMISCHE RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT E.V. v. GERMANY

The applicant , PERSON . ORG , is a religious association based in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr H. NORP and Mr PERSON , both of FAC .

The applicant association was formed in GPE ( GDR ) in DATE by citizens of the NORP faith .

On DATE it obtained ORG approval as a religious association with legal personality ( rechtsfähig ) .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG PERSON PDS ) decided to make a donation ( GPE ) of CARDINAL GDR marks to the applicant association , following a request to that effect from the association .

On DATE the president of the applicant association received a cheque for that amount .

On DATE he handed the cheque to the applicant association ’s bank , which credited the sum to its account on DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG for ORG in the GPE ( ORG zur Prüfung des Vermögens der Parteien und Massenorganisationen in der DDR ) stated that the donation in question constituted an asset covered by section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON of DATE on parties and other political associations , also known as LAW ( Gesetz über Parteien und andere politische ORG ) ) , as amended by ORG of DATE ( Gesetz zur GPE des GPE ) ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . The asset was therefore subject to the administration of ORG ( Treuhandanstalt ) .

The commission also considered that this unlawful disposal by the PDS of its assets without ORG consent , in breach of section DATE ) of LAW , had in fact amounted to a fictitious transaction ( Scheingeschäft ) designed to enable the applicant association ’s president , who had close links with the PDS , to retain possession of the sum in question .

In a decision of DATE ORG relating to ORG ( Bundesanstalt für vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben DATE “ the ORG ” ) ruled that the sum of money DATE converted into MONEY ( DEM ) , together with the accrued interest – in the applicant association ’s bank account constituted an asset subject to the administration of ORG and could not be disposed of without the ORG ’s consent , by virtue of section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

ORG considered that the sum in question had been part of the ORG ’s assets , which had been placed under the administration of ORG from DATE , pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of LAW . As the applicant association ’s bank account had not been credited with the sum until after DATE , authorisation for that change in assets should have been sought from ORG , in accordance with section DATE ) of LAW , but that had not been the case .

On DATE the applicant association lodged an objection against that decision , arguing , in particular , that , in accordance with LAW of LAW ( Zivilgesetzbuch DDR ) , payment of the donation had taken effect when the cheque had been handed over on DATE and that the value of its assets had therefore increased on that date .

In a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the objection .

The applicant association subsequently applied to ORG ( Verwaltungsgericht ) to have ORG decisions set aside on the ground , inter alia , that it was not an organisation related to the ORG but a religious association entitled to protection under LAW ) .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the application in its entirety .

ORG held that the conditions for applying section CARDINAL of LAW were not satisfied . The applicant association was neither a juristic person nor an organisation related to the PDS , and ORG was not responsible for the administration of assets which had been transferred in accordance with the power of third parties to dispose of property ( PERSON ) , even if the relevant contractual agreements had been invalid ( unwirksam ) . In addition , it had not been established that the applicant association had been formed to pursue any aims other than those set out in its articles of association .

ORG appealed against that judgment to ORG ( Oberverwaltungsgericht ) .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG judgment .

ORG held that ORG decision had had no basis in law as the applicant association was neither a juristic person nor an organisation related to the ORG . Even though the circumstances surrounding its formation and the payment of the donation in issue remained questionable in certain respects , there was insufficient evidence of any link between the applicant association and the FAC .

ORG added that , in accordance with LAW of LAW , the power to dispose of the sum in question had not become effective until the money had been credited to the applicant association ’s bank account . Admittedly , when LAW had come into force on DATE , the money had still been part of the ORG ’s assets . However , that did not justify ORG actions , since it was required to institute civil proceedings if it wished to seek damages from third parties . It was unable to take any administrative measures by virtue of its powers as a public authority save in respect of the types of juristic person listed in section CARDINALb of LAW .

ORG subsequently appealed on points of law to ORG ) .

In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed ORG appeal and set aside the judgment of ORG on the ground that it had contravened federal law ( ORG ) .

ORG held that ORG had been entitled to consider that , pursuant to section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the donation paid into the applicant association ’s bank account was placed under the administration of ORG .

It considered , firstly , that the sum of money in question had indeed been part of the ORG ’s assets on the key date of DATE and that , secondly , administration by ORG under section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of LAW could extend to third parties other than those specifically referred to in that provision .

With regard to the first point , ORG referred to its own decision of DATE and reiterated that a change in assets did not take effect on the date on which the cheque was handed over but only on the date on which the sum appearing on the cheque was credited to the relevant bank account . In the instant case , that had not occurred until DATE in other words , after DATE , the date on which ORG had come into force , placing the sum in issue under the administration of ORG .

ORG subsequently held that the fact that , as a result of the transfer , the ORG ’s right to payment from its bank had been transformed into a right enjoyed by the applicant association to payment from its own bank did not mean that that the money in question was no longer part of the ORG ’s assets ; furthermore , the money had been paid into an account that already contained assets belonging to the applicant association . In that connection , it pointed out that the purpose of section CARDINAL ) of LAW was , as it had previously held , to secure political - party assets acquired in breach of the rule of law ( rechtsstaatswidrig ) , with a view to returning them to their former owners or using them in the public interest . Section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of LAW should therefore be construed according to economic criteria ( wirtschaftliche GPE ) and , accordingly , ORG administration of cash assets or money held in a bank account did not cease to be effective as a result of ordinary private - law transactions but continued as long as the sum in question was still sufficiently identifiable as the property of the party concerned , as had been the case in this instance .

With regard to the second point , ORG considered that ORG power of administration did not entail administration as a trustee in the ordinary sense but entitled it to exercise its sovereign powers to administer and dispose of assets ( hoheitliche Verwaltungs- und ORG ) vis - à - vis third parties by means of a declaratory administrative measure ( feststellender PERSON ) . Under section CARDINAL ) of LAW , ORG activities were not designed to protect the best interests of the political party or related organisation . On the contrary , its task was to ensure , once the assets in question had been secured , that they were returned to their former owners by way of reparation ( Wiedergutmachung ) or , if that proved impossible , that they were used in the public interest . Only where the assets had been acquired in accordance with the rule of law were they to be returned to the party or related organisation . The sovereign powers conferred on ORG accordingly included the right to use those powers against third parties by means of an administrative measure .

The applicant association subsequently lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) .

In a decision of DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , refused to entertain the appeal .

The Political Parties LAW of DATE ( Gesetz zur GPE des GPE ) , which amended the GPE ’s PERSON of DATE on parties and other political associations , also known as LAW ( Gesetz über Parteien und andere politische ORG ) ) , came into force on DATE .

Section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that the Prime Minister ( Ministerpräsident ) is to appoint an independent commission to draw up a report on the assets ( PERSON ) of all the GPE ’s political parties and related organisations , juristic persons and mass organisations , both within and outside the territory of the GPE .

By section CARDINAL ) , all political parties and related organisations , juristic persons and mass organisations must , inter alia , provide the commission with a statement of all their assets as at DATE and of any subsequent changes .

Section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) provides that as soon as the LAW comes into force , no changes in the assets of such entities may be effected without the consent of the chairman of the independent commission .

Section CARDINAL ) provides :

“ In order to secure the assets of political parties or related organisations , juristic persons and mass organisations , all assets which belonged to political parties and related organisations , juristic persons and mass organisations on DATE , or which have subsequently replaced those assets , shall be placed under the administration of a trustee . ”

( “ PERSON oder ihnen verbundenen PERSON , juristischen CARDINAL und Massenorganisationen wird das ORG der Parteien und der ihnen verbundenen PERSON , juristischen ORG , das am CARDINAL . DATE bestanden oder seither an die GPE dieses Vermögens getreten ist , unter treuhänderische GPE gestellt . ” )


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with several offences , including murder and robbery .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG , on the basis of a jury verdict , found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twentyone DATE imprisonment .

The applicant appealed and on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in substance . The applicant was not represented by a lawyer .

On DATE the ORG of ORG of the Russian Federation quashed , by way of supervisory review , the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appellate court . The court noted that the absence of legal representation infringed the applicant ’s defence rights .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction in substance , but reduced his sentence to twenty years’ imprisonment . The applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer .

NORP The applicant was detained in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG pending investigation and trial from DATE to CARDINAL June DATE . On numerous occasions he was transferred to a temporary detention facility in ORG or remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE in connection with the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in ORG to serve the prison sentence there .

On DATE the applicant was returned to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in Barnaul in connection with the proceedings unrelated to the present case . He remained there until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transported to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in ORG where he continued to serve the prison sentence until DATE .

It appears that the applicant lodged several complaints in connection with the criminal proceedings against him and on DATE he was transferred back to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG in order for him to participate in the court hearings .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE to ensure his participation in the appeal hearing at ORG of GPE by means of a video link . On DATE the applicant was returned to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was transported to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL to serve the prison sentence .

In DATE , for reasons unknown the applicant was detained in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE from CARDINAL May to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL August to DATE and from CARDINAL to DATE .

The Government provided the following information as regards the cell numbers , surface area and population related to the applicant ’s stay in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL :

At all times the applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding . He received CARDINAL bed sheets , a pillow case , CARDINAL towels , a blanket , a mattress , a pillow , a spoon and a mug . The temperature in the cells was between + CARDINALC and + CARDINAL The heating system functioned properly . All cells in the remand prison were equipped with mandatory ventilation in good working order . In addition , the windows were equipped with vents to ensure natural ventilation of the LOC . All cells had a sink , a water tap and a toilet which was separated by a CARDINAL.CARDINAL-m partition from the living area . The dining table was located QUANTITY away from the toilet . Window panes were installed for DATE . There were no gaps in the window frames . The applicant could take CARDINAL shower per week for TIME . The inmates were also provided with water - heating devices and sinks for their laundry . During DATE the lighting was on from TIME . At TIME lower - voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting in the lavatory . The cells were disinfected at least once DATE . No parasites or rodents were detected in the cells where the applicant was detained . The applicant was provided with CARDINAL meals a day . All the food was subjected to quality checks .

According to the applicant , upon arrival at the remand prison he was placed in cell no . CARDINAL . The cell measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates . There were not enough beds and the inmates took turns to sleep . The toilet was not separated from the living area of the cell . The lighting was not sufficient . The cell was infested with bed bugs . No bed sheets , pillows or blankets were provided . There were only old and dirty mattresses .

DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL . The cell measured QUANTITY and housed QUANTITY inmates . Sometimes their number reduced to CARDINAL or ten . The toilet was elevated from the floor by QUANTITY and afforded no privacy . The dining table was QUANTITY away from the toilet . There was no sink and inmates had to wash themselves over the toilet . There were CARDINAL bunk beds . Because of wide gaps around the windows the cell was very cold in DATE . The lighting was insufficient . The mattresses were old and smelly . No bed sheets , pillows or blankets were provided . There were no more than CARDINAL mugs , cups and spoons . The cell was infested with lice , bed bugs and cockroaches . It was not ventilated . The remand centre organised CARDINAL laundry day per month . The inmates were allowed to submit to the laundry only bed - sheets , pillow cases and blankets received from their relatives . No other items were accepted . Medicine was rarely prescribed . The cell was not disinfected . The food was of poor quality . The newly arrived detainees underwent a medical examination DATE after their arrival . As a result , inmates suffering from tuberculosis , syphilis , gonorrhoea , scabies and fungal infections , and HIV - positive detainees , were on several occasions placed in the cell where the applicant was detained .

On an unspecified date the applicant was placed in a different cell while cell no . CARDINAL was being renovated . On several occasions he was transferred to other cells . The conditions of detention , however , remained unchanged . In DATE the applicant was returned to the same cell , which was assigned a new number , no . CARDINAL . He was detained there until DATE .

The walls in the cell had been repainted and there were CARDINAL bunk beds left . However , at the relevant time there were CARDINAL inmates in the cell . A sink had been installed . The toilet had been separated from the living area by a metal partition . Despite the separation , the person using the toilet could still be seen by the inmates . Ventilation had been installed , but it was constantly out of order . Bed sheets and pillow cases were provided only once , allegedly before an inspection of the remand centre .

As regards the conditions of his detention DATE and DATE , in his submissions sent to ORG DATE the applicant indicated that at no time was he afforded QUANTITY of personal space .

Section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have CARDINAL four square metres of personal space in his or her cell .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) visited GPE from DATE . The section of its ORG to ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) dealing with the conditions of detention in remand establishments and the complaints procedure read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . It should be stressed at the outset that the ORG was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great concern for the NORP penitentiary system : overcrowding .

When the ORG first visited GPE in DATE , overcrowding was identified as the most important and urgent challenge facing the prison system . At DATE visit , the delegation was informed that the remand prison population had decreased by CARDINAL since DATE . An example of that trend was GPE No CARDINAL in GPE , which had registered a PERCENT decrease in the remand prison population over DATE .

The ORG welcomes the measures taken in DATE by the NORP authorities to address the problem of overcrowding , including instructions issued by ORG , aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in custody . Nevertheless , the information gathered by the ORG ’s delegation shows that much remains to be done . In particular , overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are underdeveloped . In this respect , the ORG reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ; paragraphs CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ; paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) . ”


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , ORG at ORG .

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

NORP In DATE the criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated accessory to murder . On DATE he was remanded in custody .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment of conviction . The applicant was found guilty of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated accessory to murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant and his defence lawyer lodged an appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction and the sentence in full .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

The applicant was born in DATE and is presently serving a prison term in FAC .

Following a series of criminal convictions for drug abuse , the applicant was sent to serve the sentence in LOC ( NORP zavod GPE ) on DATE . On DATE he was transferred to ORG .

While the applicant was serving a prison term in LOC , the prison authorities instituted disciplinary proceedings against him on an unspecified date . The hearings were held on DATE . Both the applicant and his counsel were present at the hearings . The applicant and CARDINAL witnesses gave evidence in person . In the Head of the Disciplinary Proceedings ' decision of DATE it was established that on DATE the applicant had held closed the door of cell no . CARDINAL and had thus prevented a member of the prison staff from entering the cell and performing his duties . The applicant 's conduct was found to be in breach of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG o izvršavanju kazne zatvora ) and he was sentenced to DATE solitary confinement suspended for DATE . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE at TIME It was also served on his counsel on an unspecified date . The applicant 's counsel lodged an appeal against the decision on DATE , DATE .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences declared the appeal inadmissible as being out of time . The judge held that the time - limit for an appeal was TIME and that the time - limit had expired on DATE at TIME despite the fact that DATE had been a DATE . The time - limit could not be extended to DATE , since it had been fixed in TIME .

During his stay in ORG the prison authorities opened disciplinary proceedings against the applicant . The prison authorities found that on DATE the applicant had attempted to smuggle illegal drugs into the prison via a letter sent to him by his girlfriend , which constituted a disciplinary offence under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG . In his decision of DATE the Head of Disciplinary Proceedings imposed on the applicant a disciplinary measure consisting of a restriction on his movement inside the prison and frequent contacts with the outside world for a period of DATE , including a ban on receiving postal parcels , starting from DATE .

In an appeal of CARDINAL DATE the applicant , inter alia , alleged that he had not attended the final hearing before the prison disciplinary authorities because his lawyer had not been present . The applicant also alleged that the notes of that hearing had not been served on him . He further stated that his counsel would elaborate on these issues in a separate appeal . On DATE counsel lodged a separate appeal whereby he contested the findings of the applicant 's guilt and the severity of the disciplinary measure imposed . On DATE the ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the appeal . The decision analysed in some detail the evidence presented in the disciplinary proceedings but made no mention of the procedural defects complained of by the applicant .

The applicant submitted that he had firstly been put in cell no . CARDINAL in Unit CARDINAL . However , later on he had been moved to ORG . He alleged that the room had been very damp , and the mattresses old and torn so that bare wire stuck out . The bed sheets and pillowcases had been dirty and the blankets old and foul smelling . No daylight entered the cell and the electric light had to be switched on DATE . He had been locked in his cell for TIME per day , with no contact with other prisoners or the outside world . He had been allowed CARDINAL TIME walks and TIME of exercise in a gym per day , both without the presence of any other prisoner . The rest of the time he had had to spend locked alone in his cell . He had not had regular access to a bathroom or running water and his access to sanitary facilities had been left to the discretion of the prison guards . The heating had been inadequate and the food of low quality . No toiletries had been provided to the applicant and no permanent doctor had been on duty in the prison . Only CARDINAL doctor ( a paediatrician ) had come once in a while for TIME at a time .

According to the Government , the main building of FAC was built in DATE and renovated in DATE . It comprised CARDINAL units . The first ( “ FAC ) consisted of CARDINAL - bed cells and the other ( “ FAC ” ) of CARDINAL - bed cells , each equipped with a toilet . Inmates shared a communal bathroom . Unit CARDINAL had a communal living - room . Disinfection and rat extermination were performed regularly . Inmates ' clothes and bed sheets could be washed in the prison laundry every day . The bed sheets were changed once DATE .

On DATE the applicant had arrived at FAC . He had been put in FAC , under the “ semi - open ” prison regime until DATE when he had been moved to ORG , under a higher security regime , to a cell measuring QUANTITY and sanitary facilities measuring QUANTITY , which he had shared with another inmate . In DATE he had been moved back to FAC to a cell measuring QUANTITY with sanitary facilities measuring QUANTITY , which he had shared with CARDINAL inmates at times . He had stayed there until DATE when he had been moved back to Unit CARDINAL due to an incident involving a fight with another inmate . He had stayed there until DATE when he had been transferred to PERSON . During his stay in FAC the applicant had been locked in his cell save for TIME in the mornings when he had been allowed to go out in the courtyard and for TIME between CARDINAL and TIME when he had been allowed to watch television , read or play games in a common room . During his stay in FAC the applicant worked for TIME .

According to the applicant , on DATE he had been injured by another prisoner who had struck him twice on the head . He had been taken to a doctor to whom he had complained of general sickness , dizziness and heavy thirst . However , the doctor had only prescribed painkillers and had not made any further examinations . The applicant had asked that an X - ray examination be carried out at his own expense , but this had been refused . He further alleged that he had a bruise under his left eye .

According to the Government the applicant had been seen by the prison doctor DATE and the following day . The doctor had prescribed painkillers . Following the applicant 's further complaints of backache , he had been taken to ORG and seen by a specialist . An X - ray examination had been carried out but no fractures had been identified . The applicant had been prescribed further painkillers to be taken orally and a soothing gel . The Government submitted a copy of the medical report from ORG to confirm their submissions .

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences , complaining about the prison conditions and also alleging that a postal parcel sent to him by his parents on DATE , containing CARDINAL cartons of cigarettes , CARDINAL magazines on motor cars and CARDINAL notebook , had never been delivered but had instead been returned to his parents , who had informed the applicant about it .

On DATE the judge requested ORG authorities to comment on the complaint concerning the alleged non - delivery of the parcel . In his letter to the prison authorities of DATE , the judge noted that a prison governor was allowed to temporarily prohibit a prisoner from receiving parcels for health and security reasons and that the prisoner in question should be informed about such a decision and the reasons for it . The applicant received a copy of the letter .

The applicant again petitioned ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences on DATE , repeating his complaints about the prison conditions and further asserting that CARDINAL letters he had sent to various persons had never been delivered . The judge replied to the applicant 's allegations by letter of CARDINAL DATE stating that ORG authorities had informed him that all his letters had been properly forwarded and instructed the applicant to send future letters via registered mail only . As to the applicant 's complaints concerning the prison conditions , the judge expressly stated that he had no jurisdiction to supervise the running of prisons .

Following the incident of DATE , the applicant was moved back to ORG , and the Prison Governor ordered that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against him . On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision , alleging that he had been attacked by another inmate who had struck him twice on the head . The applicant further complained that the medical assistance provided to him had been insufficient since the doctor had only prescribed him painkillers and had not made any further examinations . His request that an X - ray examination be carried out at his own expense had been refused . On DATE the ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant 's appeal on the ground that the decision to place the applicant under the “ closed prison regime ” had been based in law and was a consequence of his conduct , which had endangered the order and security in the prison . No comment was made about the applicant 's allegations concerning the lack of adequate medical assistance .

The applicant appealed against the judge 's decision on DATE to a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG . In his appeal he complained about the conditions in Unit CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The panel dismissed the applicant 's appeal on DATE on the ground that the only way to prevent further unacceptable behaviour on his part had been his isolation . They made no remarks concerning the applicant 's complaint about the conditions in Unit CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Ustav PERSON ) provides :

“ No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... ”

The Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act ( Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL of DATE , and no . CARDINAL of DATE ( consolidated text ) DATE “ the LAW ” ) came into force on DATE , whereas the provisions concerning the judge responsible for the execution of sentences came into force DATE , on DATE . The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Inmates shall have the right to complain about an act or decision of a prison employee .

( CARDINAL ) Complaints shall be lodged orally or in writing with a prison governor , a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or ORG . Written complaints addressed to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or ORG shall be submitted in an envelope which the prison authorities may not open ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) An inmate may lodge a request for judicial protection against any acts or decisions unlawfully denying him , or limiting him in , any of the rights guaranteed by LAW .

( CARDINAL ) NORP for judicial protection shall be decided by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences . ”

( CARDINAL ) Objects suspected of being connected to a criminal offence shall be forfeited and a record thereof drawn up . These objects shall be handed over to the competent authority . Objects suspected of being designed to facilitate escape from a prison or endangering order and security and objects that may endanger health shall be forfeited , destroyed or handed over to the competent authority . A record of these acts shall be drawn up . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The accommodation of inmates shall meet the required standards in terms of health , hygiene and space , including climatic conditions .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall as a general rule be accommodated in separate rooms ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG rooms shall be clean , dry and of adequate size . Each inmate shall have QUANTITY and QUANTITY of space in the room .

( CARDINAL ) Every room ... must have daylight and artificial light ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG and prisons must be equipped with sanitary facilities allowing inmates to meet their physiological needs in clean and adequate conditions , whenever they wish to do so .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall have drinking water at their disposal at all times . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Inmates shall be provided with medical treatment and regular care for their physical and mental health ... ”

( CARDINAL ) A doctor shall examine a sick or injured inmate ... and undertake all measures necessary to prevent or cure the illness and to prevent deterioration of the inmate 's health . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) An inmate has the right to seek a specialist examination if such an examination has not been ordered by a prison doctor .

“ ( CARDINAL ) An inmate has the right to receive a postal parcel containing authorised items at least once DATE and during DATE .

( CARDINAL ) The sender shall enclose a list of contents with the parcel .

( CARDINAL ) The parcel shall be opened and examined by a prison official in the presence of the inmate concerned .

( CARDINAL ) Unauthorised , stale and dangerous items shall be treated in the manner prescribed by section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The Prison Governor may temporarily ban reception of parcels for reasons of health or safety , of which the inmate concerned shall be informed . The inmate has the right of appeal to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences . The appeal does not have suspensive effect . ”

( CARDINAL ) Minor disciplinary offences are :

CARDINAL ) preventing an official or any other person involved in the implementation of the programme of execution [ of prison sentences ] from performing their duties ;

( CARDINAL ) Grave disciplinary offences are :

CARDINAL ) possession or intake of any narcotic or psychoactive substance ;

“ ( CARDINAL ) Disciplinary offences are punishable with disciplinary measures .

( CARDINAL ) Disciplinary measures are :

CARDINAL ) an admonition ;

CARDINAL ) restriction or prohibition on using money inside the prison for DATE ;

CARDINAL ) restriction or temporary deprivation of some or all privileges enumerated in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Act ;

CARDINAL ) solitary confinement for CARDINAL twenty - one days during free time or during night and day ;


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

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

The applicant is a NORP priest . In DATE he had been appointed to a parish in GPE . On DATE his superior informed the applicant that he had been transferred to a different parish . The applicant challenged this decision . His objection was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE . The decision on the applicant ’s transfer thus became effective . In the meantime , on DATE , a different priest had been transferred to the parish in question . The applicant was suspended by the ORG ’s decision of DATE . The applicant filed an objection . ORG in GPE upheld that decision on DATE .

In DATE the applicant brought proceedings before ORG claiming the payment of his remuneration which the defendant diocesan office had stopped . The case was transferred to ORG to which the applicant submitted the same claim on DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the action . In its decision the court referred to the Code of Canon PERSON , to sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW and concluded that the legal relations between the applicant and the defendant diocesan office were governed by canon law . Those relations were not labour law relations within the meaning of LOC the provisions of which could not , therefore , be applied . The judgment stated , with reference to the decree of ORG of DATE , that the bishop ’s decision to transfer the applicant had been effective as from DATE and that the applicant ’s appeal against it could not affect the position . The judgment also stated that the applicant had lost the right to carry out pastoral activity as a result of the bishop ’s decision to suspend him given on DATE .

The applicant appealed . He claimed that the first - instance court had decided arbitrarily in disregard of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . He also submitted that the ordinary courts should examine whether the application of its internal rules by ORG was in accordance with the generally binding legal rules . He argued that the defendant diocesan office was to be regarded as his employer . It had paid health insurance contributions in respect of the applicant in the same way as other employers and it had issued a certificate indicating the period of the applicant ’s employment for the purpose of health and social insurance . The applicant also submitted that the relevant regulations published in the Collection of Laws governed the remuneration of priests .

In its observations on the case the defendant diocesan office underlined that the applicant ’s service within the church was governed by canon law and that the relevant issues could not be examined under LAW as suggested by the applicant . The defendant explained that the applicant , of his own will , had carried out no pastoral activity after DATE when he had handed over the parish in GPE to a different priest . Under the relevant provisions of Act CARDINAL and of Regulations DATE and CARDINAL the applicant had therefore no right to remuneration after that date . In accordance with the provisions of canon law , the bishop had suspended the applicant after attempts to redress the situation had failed . ORG in GPE had confirmed the validity of the bishop ’s decree on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . It noted that churches were autonomous in the exercise of their functions and that interference by courts with their decisions relating to the modalities of service of their ministers or its termination would be contrary to the LAW . With reference to the relevant law , ORG held that clergymen were entitled to remuneration for the exercise of pastoral activity . Should a church fail to pay remuneration and other sums due to a member of its clergy for exercise of pastoral activity , the person would be entitled to seek redress before the ordinary courts . However , since the applicant ’s claim for remuneration related to a period when he did not exercise his function as a priest , and since the ordinary courts lacked power to examine whether or not the church authority ’s decisions to transfer the applicant to a different parish and to suspend him had been justified , his action could not be granted .

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG . He alleged a violation of his constitutional rights to judicial protection , to equality of rights without discrimination and to freedom of religion and expression , as well as of his right to satisfactory working conditions including remuneration .

On DATE ORG found that the ordinary courts dealing with the case had violated the applicant ’s rights under LAW § CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW and also his rights under LAW and ( b ) of the LAW . ORG expressed the view , among others , that the applicant ’s claims for payment of a sum of money and for remuneration fell to be examined under the NORP legal order and , as such , they should have been determined by the ordinary courts . ORG judgment in its relevant parts reads as follows :

“ The ordinary courts considered the church law to form a part of the legal and not of the factual aspect of the case . They decided in application of rules which are not a part of the legal order of GPE [ which ] does not allow their particular use ; [ they ] thereby violated the petitioner ’s right under LAW ...

The decision on the existence , termination and nature of the legal relations between the petitioner and ORG in ORG determines the preliminary issue in respect of the decision on the financial claims of the petitioner . A preliminary question is one which can be decided upon in separate proceedings in which , of course , the legal order of GPE would be applied . In this context the Constitutional Court points out that even when deciding on a preliminary issue , the courts were obliged to apply the legal order of GPE or rules the use of which the NORP legal order permits ...

The church authorities deciding on the legal relations between the petitioner and ORG in ORG are not public authorities and they applied canon law . For this reason the [ ordinary courts ] should not have accepted their decision as determining a preliminary issue by a different authority under LAW . By accepting the decisions of the church authorities concerning the legal relations between the applicant and ORG in ORG as decisions within the meaning of LAW , ORG and ORG in ORG violated the petitioner ’s right to judicial and other legal protection under LAW ... ”

At the relevant time the Constitutional Court lacked power to afford effective redress to the applicant ( see below ) .

Pursuant to LAW , GPE is a sovereign and democratic State of law . It is not bound by any ideology or religion .

LAW and QUANTITY provides , inter alia , that human beings are equal in dignity and rights . The fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed to everybody without distinction .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL guarantees to everyone the freedom of thought , conscience , religion and faith . Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL provides that churches and religious communities administer their matters themselves . In particular , they establish their organs and appoint their clergymen independently of ORG authorities .

Article CARDINAL(a ) and ( b ) guarantees to employees , inter alia , the right to remuneration for their work and protection against arbitrary dismissal and against discrimination in employment .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL guarantees the right to judicial protection . It provides , in particular , that everybody has the right to seek protection for his or her rights before an independent and impartial tribunal in accordance with the procedure set out in the law or , in cases provided for by the law , before a different authority of GPE .

Pursuant to LAW , as in force until DATE , ORG could commence proceedings upon the petition ( “ podnet ” ) presented by any individual or corporation claiming that their rights had been violated . According to its case - law under this provision , ORG lacked power to draw legal consequences from its finding that a petitioner ’s rights had been violated . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . ORG held that it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to a petitioner who was successful in proceedings before it .

LAW and QUANTITY provides that courts in civil proceedings examine matters related to civil law relations and also to labour , family , co - operative as well as business relations unless the law reserves their examination to other authorities . Courts examine and decide upon other issues only where the law so provides .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that courts are bound , inter alia , by decisions given by competent authorities that an offence or a minor offence was committed as well as by decisions determining the status of a person . Under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , a court can otherwise itself determine issues which fall to be determined by a different authority . However , where a competent authority has determined such an issue in an earlier decision , courts shall base themselves on such a decision .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , churches and religious communities administer their own affairs . In particular , they establish their organs , appoint their ministers and establish their own orders and other institutions independently of the ORG authorities .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that persons carrying out ecclesiastical activities do so upon authorisation by churches and religious communities in accordance with their internal rules and the generally binding rules . As regards the latter rules , the law expressly refers to LAW .

Paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL provides that churches and religious communities assess the capacity of persons to carry out ecclesiastical activities and decide on their appointment to posts in accordance with such assessment .

Under section CARDINAL ) , churches and religious communities , in accordance with their internal rules , appoint persons who carry out ecclesiastical activities and teachers of religion , and assign them to a certain geographical district where appropriate .

Act CARDINAL , as amended , governs the economic maintenance by the ORG of churches and religious communities .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that , where registered churches and religious communities so request , the ORG remunerates , in accordance with this LAW , ministers who act as employees of churches and religious communities in ecclesiastical matters , in church administration or in institutions for the education of ministers .

The scale of basic salaries and of supplements payable to clergymen is set out in Government ’s Regulation CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended by Regulation CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the period of pastoral activity to be taken into account for determination of the remuneration of clergymen is to be determined by the church concerned .

ORG has been charged with carrying out state administration in matters relating to churches and religious communities . Its activities comprise , inter alia , finalising the proposals as regards the relevant part of the ORG budget , distribution of financial means from the ORG budget to churches and supervision of the use of such means . ORG does not , however , interfere with internal matters of churches and religious communities .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The first and fifth applicants were born in DATE . The second applicant was born in DATE . The third applicant was born in DATE . The fourth applicant was born in DATE . The sixth applicant was born in DATE . The applicants are nationals of GPE and reside in GPE , LOC .

NORP In DATE the applicants initiated proceedings in ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) against ORG of ORG ( the “ Department ” ) , seeking to recover an additional salary payment allegedly due to them for their time - in - service .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicants ' claims and ordered the ORG to pay the applicants the additional salary ( time - in - service bonuses ) . In particular , it ordered that the first applicant be paid ORG CARDINAL in compensation , DATE CARDINAL.CARDINAL , DATE CARDINAL , DATE , DATE CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and DATE UAH CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG service ( the “ Bailiffs ” ) initiated enforcement proceedings for the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG suspended the execution of the judgment for DATE due to the lack of funds in the budget of the ORG .

On DATE the Bailiffs informed the applicants that ORG had suspended the execution of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE would be executed when the ORG had provided the necessary budgetary funding . The judgment remained unenforced due to the ORG 's lack of funds .

On DATE the amounts due to them pursuant to the judgment of CARDINAL DATE were transferred to the applicants . They received the following amounts ( the initial sums awarded by that judgment having been subjected to taxation ) : the first applicant – UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL , the second applicant – UAH CARDINAL , the third applicant – UAH MONEY , the fourth applicant – UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL , the fifth applicant – UAH MONEY , and the sixth applicant – UAH CARDINAL .

NORP The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

From DATE , assets of the applicant , who had made an investment in a NORP company in GPE , were expropriated by the NORP authorities without compensation . Relying on LAW between GPE and the former ORG ( GPE ) of DATE , which remained in force between GPE and GPE after the disintegration of the GPE , the applicant complained to an international arbitral tribunal in GPE , GPE , requesting compensation .

On DATE the arbitral tribunal awarded MONEY ( ORG ) plus interest to the applicant . ORG refused to pay this arbitral award . It made a request before the NORP courts that the arbitral award be declared void . On DATE ORG dismissed the request ; GPE appeals were to no avail .

On DATE ORG declared the arbitral award enforceable . Relying on LAW of DATE and LAW of DATE , it observed that GPE could not rely on a general immunity from execution . ORG added that it was not for it to decide , however , whether international law prohibited enforcement measures directed against specific assets such as assets serving a sovereign purpose . The applicant subsequently initiated execution proceedings in GPE .

The applicant requested an execution order ( Pfändungs- PERSON ) for ORG claims against GPE concerning the reimbursement of GPE ( ORG ) . The VAT owed by GPE stemmed from ORG acquisitions of goods and services . In DATE , ORG granted the request , and attached and transferred GPE claims for NORP reimbursement . GPE objected to the order .

On DATE ORG cancelled the order , holding that the attachment of the claims was not in accordance with international law . It observed that GPE had issued a declaration in which it had assured that the reimbursed VAT solely served to maintain the functioning of the diplomatic and consular missions . Therefore , the attached claims served sovereign purposes and were exempt from execution . Furthermore , GPE had not declared a waiver of immunity for the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It found that an execution would be inadmissible under the rules of international law . The assurance given by GPE that the reimbursed ORG served solely to maintain the functioning of the diplomatic and consular missions was sufficient .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law ( no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It found that the enforcement of ORG claims of NORP reimbursement was inadmissible . GPE enjoyed diplomatic immunity in relation to these claims as they served for the maintenance of the diplomatic ORG sovereign functions . It was pertinent in that context that there was no need for an actual impediment of the diplomatic activities to have occurred ; an abstract risk of impediment sufficed . This general rule of international law was also applicable to assets which did not DATE as in the present case DATE within the ambit of LAW ; rather , the protection extended to all assets serving for the functioning of diplomatic and consular missions . It was also of no relevance whether GPE was capable of assuring sufficient funds for its missions by other means ; if it had been , diplomatic immunity would have to depend on a ORG ’s financial capacity . In the present case , ORG assurance had been sufficient and it would have amounted to an illegal interference in matters of a foreign State to ask GPE to specify the purpose of the assets .

ORG also observed that diplomatic immunity was an essential element of effective international cooperation and had to be respected in order to be able to settle disputes by peaceful means . These principles prevailed over the applicant ’s interest in attaching the assets . As to GPE alleged waiver of immunity , ORG found that LAW , regulating the procedure on the merits , contained no waiver for enforcement proceedings . Such a waiver could also not be inferred from LAW ( in particular its LAW ) or LAW on ORG , or any other treaty . According to the spirit and purpose of LAW , enforcement proceedings were generally permitted , but did not extend to assets serving a sovereign purpose .

On DATE ORG declared the constitutional complaint inadmissible without providing reasons .

The applicant requested an execution order for ORG claims against the NORP airline ORG . Those claims allegedly arose from , inter alia , the granting of overflight , transit and landing permits . On DATE the GPE ORG granted the request . ORG and ORG objected to the order .

On DATE ORG cancelled the order . It held that the claims in question could not be attached . They were of a sovereign nature and served a sovereign purpose , as they concerned the airspace over NORP territory . It observed that a measure enforcing those claims would only have been possible if GPE had consented to the execution .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It observed that the international competence of NORP courts was doubtful . In any case , while execution on assets of GPE was not generally precluded , the attached claims could not be executed as they served a sovereign purpose and were thus subject to ORG immunity from execution . ORG had sufficiently demonstrated that the fees were to be used for sovereign purposes , namely for air traffic administration .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law ( no . VII ZB CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on CARDINAL alternative grounds . First , it held that NORP courts lacked international competence to execute claims like those in question . Relying on NORP law as the lex fori , the court held that the claims concerned fees governed by public law , which could not be executed since NORP courts were only internationally competent for execution in assets that were located on NORP territory . The obligation of ORG to pay the fees had arisen , however , within the sovereign territory of GPE , not in GPE .

Second , ORG held that , according to the rules of international law , GPE enjoyed immunity in relation to these claims as the fees for the air traffic served sovereign purposes . As ORG had held , the receipts of the fees were directly devoted to the air traffic administration , which was a sovereign task . In addition , ORG had not waived its immunity from execution . ORG found that LAW , which regulated the procedure on the merits , contained no waiver in respect of enforcement proceedings . Such a waiver could also not be inferred from LAW ( in particular its LAW ) or LAW on ORG , or any other treaty . According to the spirit and purpose of LAW , enforcement proceedings were generally permitted , but did not extend to assets serving a sovereign purpose .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the constitutional complaint for adjudication , without giving reasons .

The applicant continued his attempts to execute the arbitral award in GPE . He requested an execution on a plot of land situated in GPE , which was owned by GPE . In DATE the GPE ORG ordered the judicial sale of the plot of land .

GPE brought a civil action against the applicant , claiming that that the execution was illegal as the arbitral award had been obtained fraudulently . The courts rejected the claim . On DATE ORG refused to admit GPE constitutional complaint .

A state - owned NORP enterprise , which then owned the plot of land , lodged a complaint against the judicial sale of the plot , arguing that the execution conflicted with the international law principle of ORG immunity . ORG rejected the complaint , finding that the plot of land did not serve a sovereign purpose and was therefore not exempt from execution by the principle of ORG immunity . On DATE ORG refused to admit the constitutional complaint .

LAW of DATE between GPE and GPE reads in its LAW in fine :

“ The decisions of the arbitral tribunal shall be recognised and implemented in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of DATE . ”

LAW of DATE reads :

“ Each Contracting State shall recognise arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon , under the conditions laid down in the following articles . There shall not be imposed substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which this Convention applies than are imposed on the recognition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards . ”

The relevant provisions of international law instruments governing State immunity are referred to in various cases examined by ORG ( see , among many other authorities , ORG v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ... ( extracts ) ) .


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Renate Jaeger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Velenje .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG ( ORG ) ( “ the ORG ” ) to grant him a pension on account of his reduced earning capacity ( PERSON wegen verminderter PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed his request .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's administrative appeal lodged on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG .

On DATE ORG made its submissions . However , it sent the required medical records only on DATE .

DATE and DATE no progress was made in the proceedings .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had applied to ORG for an early old age pension for disabled persons ( GPE für GPE ) ; this was refused on DATE . Subsequently , the applicant lodged an administrative appeal against this decision . ORG decided to await the outcome of the administrative appeal proceedings , as the administrative authority likewise had to examine the applicant 's potential occupational invalidity . On DATE his administrative appeal was dismissed . These proceedings were the object of application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see “ II . Proceedings before the ORG ” below ) .

In DATE ORG resumed the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG commissioned an expert report on the applicant 's earning capacity . On DATE the expert gave his report .

On DATE , after holding an oral hearing , ORG dismissed the applicant 's action , as it could not be established that his earning capacity had been reduced at the time when he had made the required number of contributions to the statutory pension insurance ( gesetzliche GPE ) .

On DATE the judgment was served on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . In his appeal he informed the court for the first time that he had previously applied for a pension from the NORP pension authorities . On DATE the court received the appeal and requested ORG to submit its observations . On DATE the ORG requested information from the NORP pension authorities in respect of the applicant 's former pension requests .

On DATE ORG received the information from the NORP authorities . However , they were translated only on DATE and submitted to the court on DATE . On DATE the ORG requested additional information from the NORP pension authorities which it received on DATE . On DATE it translated them and submitted the information to the court on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent the applicant 's file to ORG for an examination of the question whether the criteria for the requested pension had been met on the basis of the information given by the NORP pension authorities .

On DATE ORG replied that the requirements for the requested pension had not been fulfilled .

On DATE ORG requested the applicant to indicate who his employers in GPE had been and what work he had done there .

On DATE the court received the requested information after sending the applicant CARDINAL reminders , in DATE .

On DATE the court requested ORG to make its submissions on the information given by the applicant .

On DATE ORG submitted its comments .

On DATE ORG ordered an orthopaedic expert report . On CARDINAL DATE it commissioned the expert report , which the court received on DATE . On DATE the court requested ORG to make its comments on the report .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to transmit the case files , which the court did on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG submitted its comments .

On DATE ORG forwarded these comments to the applicant .

On DATE , after holding an oral hearing , ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal , mainly endorsing the judgment of ORG .

The present case was initially registered under application no . CARDINAL . In his application form the applicant merely complained about the refusal of ORG to grant him an early pension for disabled persons and a pension on account of his reduced earning capacity .

On DATE the applicant submitted that it had been incomprehensible for him why it took ORG and ORG such a long time to decide his application . In his view there had been too many delays in the whole case . Due to these delays he had now been suffering for DATE from a financial distress . He further maintained that he had been “ cheated ” for DATE by ORG .

On DATE the ORG decided to sever the proceedings in so far as they concerned the proceedings regarding a pension on account of the applicant 's reduced earning capacity and to conduct them under the instant application no . CARDINAL .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the court that his proceedings concerning the pension on account of his reduced earning capacity were still pending and that he was very impatient because he “ has now been fighting for his rights for DATE ” .

On DATE the ORG declared application no . CARDINAL concerning the disability pension inadmissible for being manifestly illfounded .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , ORG , is a betting and gaming company based in GPE , GPE . It is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant applied to the Government , under section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , for a permit to provide betting and gaming services in GPE .

By a decision of DATE , the ORG rejected the application . The decision , prepared by ORG in consultation with ORG ( Statsrådsberedningen ) and several other ministries , was signed by PERSON , the Minister for Finance , on behalf of the Government . The Government noted that betting and gaming in GPE was essentially reserved for the ORG , certain non - profit making organisations ( folkrörelserna ) and the equestrian sports , and that the profits should be to the benefit of the public or for public utility purposes . They did not find that there were reasons to deviate from those principles and grant a permit to the applicant by way of an exception under section DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) for a judicial review of the ORG ’s decision under LAW ( NORP om rättsprövning av vissa förvaltningsbeslut , GPE ) . The applicant claimed that the impugned decision should be quashed as it was contrary to ORG DATE of LAW , the latter guaranteeing the free movement of services . It also requested the court to hold an oral hearing .

On DATE ORG , sitting with CARDINAL judges , decided not to hold a hearing in the case .

Stating that CARDINAL of the judges had previously , at ORG and ORG of ORG , dealt with the question whether LAW was in conformity with Community law , the applicant , on DATE , challenged their impartiality and moved for their disqualification from the case . CARDINAL of the challenged judges was later replaced and , before the ORG in the instant proceedings , the applicant stated that it had been clarified that there were no grounds to question the impartiality of another judge . Of relevance to the present case is thus only the alleged partiality of CARDINAL of the judges , Mr PERSON . The applicant stated in its plea for disqualification that he had been Director - ORG ( expeditions- och rättschef ) in ORG DATE , when he had allegedly been responsible for the preparation and enactment of LAW as well as a new rule which criminalised violations of that LAW ’s prohibition on the promotion of foreign lotteries . Within the scope of that work , the question whether NORP lottery legislation was contrary to ORG law had been investigated , leading to the ORG taking the view that it was not .

It is true that Mr Dexe held the above - mentioned position in ORG DATE . However , responsibility for LAW was transferred to that ministry only on DATE , DATE after it had been prepared . The new rule on criminalisation was , however , elaborated and introduced during Mr Dexe ’s period of service within ORG . In its proposal for introducing , inter alia , this rule , the Government investigated its conformity with ORG law . The decision to propose the amendment was taken by CARDINAL ministers of the Government , none of whom was PERSON , at a Government meeting held on DATE . PERSON was Minister for Finance DATE . Previously , he had not been a member of the Government or employed in the Government offices .

On DATE ORG , sitting without the challenged judges , rejected the applicant ’s plea for disqualification . It stated the following :

“ Decisions concerning Government bills are political decisions . Being a civil servant and not a political appointee , ORG at a ORG has no decisive influence on the contents of the proposals that the ORG presents . Consequently , the contents of a Government bill do not reflect the personal opinion of ORG on a legal issue ; indeed , his opinion may differ from that of the Government . Accordingly , the duty of ORG to see to the drafting of legislative proposals , on the basis of positions taken by politicians , can not be held to mean that he has thereby concerned himself with the matter in a manner that could provide grounds for disqualification when dealing with cases relating to the application of the legislation . In light of these considerations , ORG finds that PERSON previous employment as Director - ORG at ORG does not constitute a circumstance that entails disqualification in the case . Nor has any other circumstance come to light that disqualifies PERSON . The objection that he is disqualified must therefore be dismissed . ”

On DATE ORG altered its decision of DATE and granted the applicant ’s renewed request for an oral hearing . The hearing was held on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG , sitting with CARDINAL judges , including Mr Dexe , upheld the ORG ’s decision . The court stated that , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( RÅ DATE ref . CARDINAL ) , it had already examined the conformity of the NORP lottery legislation with ORG law , as interpreted by the jurisprudence of ORG , and considered that there were no reasons to come to a different conclusion in the applicant ’s case . The court had noted in the earlier case that , as regards betting , ORG had accepted extensive restrictions on the freedom to provide services on the territory of other ORG member states . The court had found therefore that the NORP lottery legislation , which required a permit for essentially all forms of betting and gaming , and its main objectives , namely the protection of the individual and the public , and the principle that profits should benefit the public or be for public utility purposes , were acceptable to ORG . The court had further considered that the implementation of the lottery legislation met the requirements laid down by ORG for restrictions on the freedoms enshrined in LAW . Thus , while the court considered that the ORG ’s reasoning in the decision of DATE could be seen as misleading and incomplete in light of the object and purpose of LAW and the examination made by the court in the above - mentioned judgment , the challenged decision was contrary neither to LAW nor to ORG law as it had been developed thus far through the jurisprudence of ORG .

LAW is applicable to lotteries , including betting , which are arranged for the general public .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that , save for some exceptions not relevant to the present case , the organisation of betting and gaming requires a permit . Under LAW , a permit to arrange betting and gaming of the type provided by the applicant may be given to a NORP non - profit making association which fulfils certain requirements , inter alia that it conducts activities whose main objective is to support public utility purposes within the country . If there are special reasons , a permit may be granted also to a legal person which is not a non - profit making association or to a legal person whose main objective is to support public utility purposes outside the country . Further conditions are laid down in LAW .

According to sections DATE , applications for a permit to organise betting and gaming are determined by a municipal committee and , in some cases , the country administrative board and ORG ( Lotteriinspektionen ) .

The Government may grant a permit by virtue of section CARDINAL :

“ The ORG may grant a special permit to arrange a lottery in other cases and according to other procedures than as provided in this LAW . ... ”

The Government is thus authorised to grant a permit in situations where the requirements of section CARDINAL are not fulfilled . The preparatory works mention the need to issue permits in specific situations . As examples of permits issued under LAW , reference is made to lotteries arranged by the savings banks in order to encourage savings and to the CARDINAL companies wholly or partially controlled by ORG , ORG and ORG , which have obtained permits to arrange certain games , including sports and horse betting . The preparatory works do not provide any other directives on how to apply this provision ( Government PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL:CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ) .

The NORP lottery legislation ’s compliance with ORG law , notably LAW , is under investigation by ORG . On DATE the ORG issued a reasoned opinion , the second step of the procedure laid down in LAW .


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 the town of GPE , GPE region , GPE .

The applicant worked as a saleswoman in the “ LOC ” shop at the ORG - owned “ Lokhvitskiy Spirtkombinat ” distillery .

In DATE , in accordance with the findings of an inspection , which revealed the shortage of goods , the applicant was dismissed from her position .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the NORP ORG against her former employer challenging her dismissal .

On DATE the court found the case ready for examination and scheduled the hearing for DATE .

On DATE , following the results of the inspection , a criminal case was instituted .

On DATE the civil proceedings in the applicant 's case were suspended until the investigation of the criminal case was completed .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti in the applicant 's actions .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned upon the applicant 's request .

On DATE the court requested ORG to provide information about the results of the investigation .

On DATE the court was informed that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been terminated .

On DATE the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing .

On DATE the applicant modified her claim .

On DATE the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing in order to allow the defendant to study the new documents submitted by the applicant .

On DATE the court postponed the hearing due to the failure of the defendant 's representative to appear .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned due to illness of the defendant 's representative .

On DATE the court found in part for the applicant and ordered her reinstatement in the position of a saleswoman . It also awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL in salary arrears and ORG CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the ORG left the defendant 's appeal against the above decision without a course and gave him the time to rectify the procedural shortcomings .

On DATE ORG quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of the court of appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . ORG held that the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal was itself competent to consider the merits of the case .

On DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It rejected the applicant 's claim for non - pecuniary damage but upheld the remainder of that decision .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

NORP In DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the judgment in her favour remained unenforced .

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure of GPE envisages that a court must suspend proceedings if it is impossible to examine the case until determination of another case which is examined in civil , criminal or administrative procedure . According to LAW , in such a situation the proceedings are suspended until the decision , on which the proceedings depend , became final .


Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

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

In DATE the applicant 's grandmother , PERSON , was executed by ORG of the ORG and her personal property was confiscated .

In DATE she was fully exonerated as a victim of political repression .

In DATE and DATE ORG of the Vinnytsia Region confirmed that PERSON had been rehabilitated posthumously and noted that there were no records concerning the confiscated property .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) , which was equal to PERCENT of CARDINAL times the minimum [ NORP ] salary , in compensation for the property confiscated from PERSON in DATE . ORG based that decision on Law No . CARDINAL-XII and ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( see the “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . In its examination of the evidence , it noted that while the confiscation of “ the personal property ” of PERSON was confirmed by the DATE verdict , there was no itemised list of that property . ORG checked the applicant 's allegation that the house of his grandmother had been confiscated together with some other property , and found that this was not true . In fact , as confirmed by the real estate registry books of DATE kept by the local council in the village where PERSON had lived , the applicant 's mother ( the daughter of PERSON ) had been living in that house and owned CARDINAL of it at the time . Furthermore , in DATE she had sold her part of the house to a third person , which was also confirmed by documentation . The villagers contacted by the Commission for further verification confirmed this too . Moreover , the house in question was no longer standing .

In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the Commission with the Frankivskyy ORG seeking an increase of the compensation to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , with a view to covering , in particular , the market value of QUANTITY houses and the income which his grandmother could have made during about a DATE period if she had not been executed .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant 's claim as unsubstantiated , having found that the contested decision of the Commission was in compliance with law and based on an accurate assessment of the facts of the case .

On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG respectively upheld that judgment .

LAW . CARDINAL-XII “ On Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression in GPE ” of DATE provided for restitution in kind of confiscated buildings and other property wherever possible ( if the house was not occupied and the property was still standing ) . It was the prerogative of ORG to establish the amount of pecuniary compensation awarded where in - kind restitution was not possible .

Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No . CARDINAL “ On the Procedure for Payment of Financial Compensation , Return of Property or Reimbursement of its Value to Rehabilitated Citizens or their Heirs ” of DATE provided for compensation equal to CARDINAL times the minimum salary in cases where it was impossible to restore the property in kind . In any event , the total amount of the compensation could not exceed CARDINAL times the minimum salary regardless of the value of the confiscated buildings and other property .

Pursuant to Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No . CARDINAL “ On the Procedure of Settlements with ORG ” of DATE , the calculation unit for determining the compensation was set at MONEY of the minimum salary ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL instead of CARDINAL ) .