George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE .

On DATE the Mayor of Mykanów issued a decision granting building permission for a certain ORG , the proprietor of a plot of land adjacent to the applicants’ house , to construct a butchery and abattoir on his property . Since DATE Mr PERSON had been running the butchery in question .

Following the re - opening of the case , on CARDINAL DATE the Mayor ’s decision of DATE was quashed .

On DATE ORG requested planning permission in order to extend the butchery .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE granted planning permission .

The applicants appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG of Appeal upheld the challenged decision . The applicants lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the complaint , quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case .

After ORG judgment , on an unspecified date , the proceedings were discontinued because the investment in question had been completed .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE granted a building permit for the extension of the butchery . The decision was upheld by the PERSON Governor on DATE .

The applicants lodged a complaint against the latter decision which was allowed by ORG on DATE ; the court quashed both preceding decisions .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE discontinued the proceedings for permission to extend the butchery because the investment in question had been completed .

On DATE the Head of ORG allowed ORG to use the existing buildings for the purposes of running a butchery .

NORP The applicants’ appeal was dismissed on DATE by the PERSON Governor . They lodged a complaint against the decision with ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the complaint and quashed both preceding decisions .

On DATE the Head of ORG stayed the proceedings because another set of proceedings was pending before the construction supervision authorities . The parties have not submitted any information regarding the progress of this set of proceedings .

On the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE given by the Mayor of PERSON carried out some building work and extended the butchery .

In the light of the fact that the extension to the butchery had been built on the basis of a final decision which was subsequently quashed , on DATE FAC ordered ORG to carry out work in order to legalise the building .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE FAC ordered the demolition of a smoking chamber as it had been built by ORG without the necessary permit .

M.N. appealed against the decision .

On DATE his appeal was rejected as having been lodged out of time . PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE the ORG reminded PERSON of the obligation to demolish the smoking chamber .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of DATE . Thus the decision of DATE ordering the demolition of the smoking chamber became enforceable .

On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG about inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities and about the fact that the decision of DATE had not been enforced .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaint , finding that they were not a party to the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG again decided that the appeal lodged by PERSON against the decision of DATE should be rejected as lodged out of time . ORG lodged a complaint against this decision with ORG . Since the relevant provisions had been amended , the complaint was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with the Chief Building Inspector about inactivity on the part of FAC in that the decision to demolish the illegal construction had not been enforced .

On DATE ORG allowed ORG ’s complaint and quashed the decision of DATE . Therefore , ORG was under an obligation to re - examine the case .

On DATE ORG re - examined the case , quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case .

On DATE FAC ordered ORG to provide certain documentation which would bring the building into compliance with the law .

On DATE FAC ordered ORG to pay MONEY ( ORG ) as a legalisation fee ( opłata legalizacyjna ) .

The parties appealed against this decision and , on DATE , ORG quashed it and remitted the case .

Following the re - examination of the case , on DATE FAC again ordered the demolition of the smoking chamber .

M.N. lodged an appeal against this decision .

On DATE the applicants lodged another complaint about inactivity on the part of FAC .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG replied to the ORG complaint , explaining the reasons for the delay , which included problems with serving the correspondence and the fact that the inspector who was conducting the proceedings had been ill . The ORG concluded that the appellate proceedings had been terminated by the decision of CARDINAL January CARDINAL .

On an unspecified date at DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG about inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities .

On DATE ORG examined their complaint and ordered LOC to issue a decision within DATE . The court found , inter alia , that “ for DATE no decision on the merits [ had been ] given ” . ORG found that the applicants had exhausted the available remedies as required by LAW , in that they had lodged appeals with ORG of ORG in which they had raised the problem of the length of the proceedings .

On DATE FAC , finding that ORG had used the smoking chamber without the required permit , imposed a fine on him .

Both decisions were upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG .

M.N. did not pay the fine ,

On DATE ORG appealed against ORG decision .

On DATE , following an inspection of ORG ’s premises and finding that he had failed to comply with the relevant provisions of FAC ( ORG ) , FAC ordered ORG to suspend the operation of the butchery and to provide the necessary documentation on certain legal and technical issues .

DATE . On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal as regards the fines imposed on him and gave judgment ; it quashed the challenged decision and the preceding decision of DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed ORG that ORG had dismantled the smoking chamber . ORG inspected the area and informed all the parties to the administrative proceedings that the smoking chamber had been dismantled . This information was disputed by the applicants in their pleadings before the ORG ; on DATE they submitted that ORG was continuing to use the butchery and the smoking chamber .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to stay the appellate proceedings which had been instituted by ORG on DATE , considering that the judgment given by ORG had not been enforceable .

On DATE ORG appealed .

On DATE the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision , considering that ORG judgment of DATE had become enforceable on CARDINAL DATE , quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicants complained to the Chief Inspector of ORG about inactivity on the part of FAC . This complaint has not yet been examined .

On DATE the Governor of PERSON gave a decision determining the admissible level of noise for ORG ’s butchery at CARDINAL dB at night time , that is , TIME

On DATE a check of the level of noise coming from ORG ’s butchery was carried out at the applicants’ property . It was established that the admissible noise level was exceeded by CARDINAL dB. Therefore , on DATE , ORG gave a decision and imposed an incremental fine on ORG

On DATE ORG informed ORG that a special silencer had been installed in the smoking chamber .

On DATE and DATE ORG inspected the butchery and confirmed that a silencer had indeed been installed and the permissible noise level was no longer being exceeded .

On DATE a further noise - level check took place . It was established that the admissible noise level on the applicants’ property was exceeded by CARDINAL dB.

On DATE the ORG gave a decision ordering that the operation of the butchery be discontinued . ORG appealed against this decision .

On DATE the Chief Environment Inspector quashed the challenged decision and discontinued the proceedings . The applicants complained to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the challenged decision and the case was remitted to ORG who , on DATE , quashed ORG decision of DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration . However , as a result of this set of proceedings , ORG ceased TIME - time operation of the smoking chamber .

On DATE and DATE , during a check carried out by ORG , it was confirmed that the smoking chamber was not operating at TIME . Subsequently , a noise test was carried out . The level was established as being PERCENT , which was CARDINAL above the permissible norm , which did not constitute a sufficient basis to impose a fine on ORG

On DATE the Regional Environment Inspector gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings . The applicants appealed .

On DATE the Chief Environment Inspector quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case .

On DATE the Governor of PERSON gave a decision cancelling his own decision of DATE . The Governor relied on the amendment of the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of CARDINAL DATE , according to which the permissible level of noise for the relevant area had been increased to CARDINAL dB.

On DATE ORG made a check of the butchery and confirmed that it was not operating at TIME . ORG constructed a shelter and a roof which functioned as acoustic screens .

DATE . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings . The applicants appealed .

On DATE the Chief Environment Inspector dismissed the appeal . The applicants did not lodge a complaint with ORG . The decision of DATE became final .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed that the decision of DATE was final and informed the applicants that no proceedings relating to ORG and his butchery were being conducted before that administrative authority .

The relevant domestic law concerning the remedies for inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities at the material time is set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( Charente - Maritime ) . He is a winegrower .

On DATE plans for improving a major road on the edge of the NORP urban area were declared to be in the public interest . Completion of this operation required the expropriation of various plots of land , including QUANTITY hectares belonging to the applicant . The expropriation liability order was issued on DATE .

On DATE the expropriations judge for the département of GPE issued an expropriation order giving rise to a transfer of ownership .

On DATE , in the absence of an agreement between the applicant and the ORG as the expropriating authority ( represented by PERSON , an inspector from FAC ) on the amount of compensation to be paid , the latter applied to the expropriations judge . In an order of DATE the expropriations judge for the département of GPE set DATE as the date for the site inspection and stated that the public hearing would be held immediately afterwards .

On DATE PERSON , Deputy Director of ORG , filed submissions in his capacity as Government Commissioner . The applicant ’s lawyer then requested an adjournment because of the lateness of these submissions . The hearing was accordingly fixed for DATE .

In a judgment of DATE , having heard the applicant , PERSON , the ORG ’s representative in the proceedings , and PERSON , the Government Commissioner , the expropriations judge assessed the compensation payable by the ORG at MONEY ( FRF ) .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this decison and filed a memorial with ORG of ORG , in which he assessed the amount of compensation due at ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG filed a memorial in reply , signed by PERSON , in which it asked that the decision be upheld ; a sheet of paper entitled “ Study of the local property market ” , listing CARDINAL contracts of sale and CARDINAL judgment , was appended . On DATE the applicant ’s representative wrote to the signee of the memorial , requesting that he send a full copy of the contracts and decisions cited . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Director of ORG , PERSON , refused to produce the documents on the ground that tax officials were bound by a duty of professional confidentiality .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel replied to the Deputy Director of ORG as follows :

“ ... it is regrettable that DATE were required to send a brief reply to a standard request for production of documents , dated DATE , even though the case is due to be heard on DATE . This aside , you are mistaken in failing to distinguish between your roles as Director of ORG and as representative of the expropriating authority in legal proceedings brought in application of the Decree of DATE – Article R. CARDINAL of the Code of ORG .

In this latter capacity , you are obliged to respect the fundamental principle of adversarial proceedings and the provisions of LAW which impose a basic obligation on the parties to produce the evidence to which they refer . This principle also applies when you are acting in your capacity as Government Commissioner , which for the moment poses no further difficulties . I might add that had your memorial contained , as a minimum , sufficient indications to enable me to order the contracts from the land registry , I would have refrained from asking you to produce these documents .

I am therefore obliged to ask the court ... to order discovery of the documents which you refer to , unless the court prefers purely and simply to discount this evidence , which would mean that it would rule only on the basis of my own terms of comparison ... ”

On DATE PERSON , standing in for the Director of ORG in his capacity as Government Commissioner , lodged submissions in support of a cross - appeal with a view to the hearing before ORG of ORG ( initially set for DATE , the hearing was subsequently postponed at the applicant ’s request until DATE ) ; he assessed the compensation in issue at FRF CARDINAL .

The applicant filed a memorial in reply , referring in particular to an infringement of his right to a fair trial in the following terms :

In the present case , the Director of ORG representing the expropriating authority and the Director of ORG acting as Government Commissioner are one and the same person , even if , for form ’s sake , the Director of ORG is represented by CARDINAL separate individuals , which is a fiction , since , as we have seen , the same person replied to the expropriated party ’s counsel on behalf of the expropriating authority and also signed the ORG ’s Commissioner ’s submissions .

It follows that the Director of ORG may take part in the present proceedings only in his capacity as the ORG ’s representative or in his capacity as Government Commissioner , and may not combine the CARDINAL roles . Otherwise , the parties do not enjoy a fair trial within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of LAW ... ”

According to the Government , the registry of ORG informed the applicant and ORG within ORG , in letters dated DATE , of further grounds of appeal lodged on DATE by the Government Commissioner .

NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG of ORG established the compensation amount at ORG CARDINAL . It held that the applicant ’s request that the court dismiss the intervention by the Director of ORG in his capacity as Government Commissioner was ill - founded . The judgment stated :

“ ... The [ applicant ’s ] criticisms of the Director of ORG activities and of the dual nature of his functions are unfounded because :

( i ) The Director of ORG CARDINAL status as Government Commissioner and ... representative of the expropriating authority does not amount to a defect ; despite the strangeness of this situation , there is nothing to prevent the Director of ORG representing the expropriating authority and simultaneously assuming the functions of Government Commissioner .

( ii ) NORP The Director of ORG joint role as Government Commissioner and representative of the expropriating authority does not deny the expropriated party a fair trial provided that the Government Commissioner does not participate in the decision - making process within the expropriations court .

( iii ) In any event , in the specific case of this appeal , CARDINAL ORG intervened , namely the Director of GPE , representing the ORG , and the Director of ORG as the Government Commissioner ( see the appointments of substitutes dated DATE and DATE in the case file ) .

Consequently , the [ applicant ’s ] claims on the basis of LAW ... must be rejected .

As regards the [ applicant ’s ] request that the ORG provide him with a copy of the contracts and judgments referred to as terms of comparison , and in the light of the adversarial principle , it seems initially that this request is admissible since it is not ‘ a new ground which was not raised at first ORG but new claims intended to secure dismissal of the other party ’s claims ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) ;

However , this request [ by the applicant ] ... must be rejected since the information provided is sufficient to allow identification of the property sold and the price agreed upon together with free discussion of their value as evidence ;

The applicant appealed on points of law , alleging in particular that there had been a violation of his right to a fair trial . He submitted that it was not necessary for a party to participate in the decision - making process for its intervention to be considered a violation of LAW , and complained that the Government Commissioner had been the last to speak , after the expropriated party , and that the latter had had no opportunity to reply . The applicant also complained that ORG had dismissed his request for production of copies of the terms of comparison cited by the Government Commissioner .

On DATE ORG dismissed this appeal on the following grounds :

“ ... Firstly , the judgment correctly accepts that , since LAW ... is not applicable , in that the Government Commissioner does not take part in ORG decision - making process , it is not necessary to find his intervention inadmissible .

Secondly , there is no text prohibiting the parties from replying to the submissions made by the Government Commissioner at the hearing .

ORG justified its decision in law ... by accepting in the exercise of its unfettered discretion that the information provided had been sufficient to enable identification of the property sold and the price agreed upon together with free discussion of their value as evidence .

In a number of départements , including GPE , ORG is the sole authority empowered to carry out purchases of real property , real - property rights or businesses , by agreement or through compulsory purchase orders , on behalf of all the ORG ’s public , civil or military bodies ( LAW ) . In the expropriation proceedings for which it is consequently responsible , it carries out , on behalf of the expropriating authority , “ all the acts incumbent on the latter ” ( LAW of LAW ) . LAW , in the version applicable at the material time , further provides :

“ In determining compensation for expropriation , the officials of ORG appointed by order of the General Director of Revenue shall act before ORG on behalf of the ORG ’s expropriating bodies .

The appointments provided for in this Article shall not apply to the officials mentioned in [ LAW ] . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW are worded as follows :

“ Failing agreement between the parties , compensation shall be determined by an expropriations judge appointed for each département from among the judges who are members of a tribunal de grande instance . ”

“ No objection may be filed against judgments given at first instance .

An appeal lies to the court of appeal within DATE from service of judgments given in application of LAW . ”

“ An extract of the judgment shall be notified at the request of the most diligent party .

It may be referred to ORG . Appeals on points of law shall be brought , investigated and tried in accordance with the procedure provided for in LAW of LAW of Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE . ”

“ The Director of ORG ) of the département in which ORG is based shall exercise the function of Government Commissioner before this ORG .

The Director of ORG ) may appoint officials from his ORG as his substitute in the role of Government Commissioner before the court mentioned in LAW .

Before the ORG dealing with the appeal , he may be substituted either by ORG ) from other départements within the court of appeal ’s territorial jurisdiction , or by officials from ORG ) whom he shall appoint specifically for this purpose . ”

“ Cases brought before the courts cited in Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL shall not be transmitted to ORG if the latter ’s presence is not required at the hearing . ”

“ Before the ORG dealing with the appeal , ORG may nevertheless ask to see the file in all cases where he believes that his ORG should be represented . In such an event , he may attend the hearing in order to lodge those submissions which he considers necessary , without prejudice to those of the Government Commissioner . ”

“ Failing agreement between the parties within DATE of receiving notification of the expropriating authority ’s offers ... the case may be referred to the expropriations judge by the more diligent party under the conditions set out in Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

“ A copy of the order fixing the date and time for inspection of the site shall be sent to the expropriating authority by the registrar of the court , with a view to its communication to the interested parties and to the Government Commissioner .

If the case is referred to the judge by the expropriated party , the parties shall be notified directly by the registrar of the date of the site inspection .

The registrar shall append a copy of the memorials and other documents in his possession to the notification sent to the Government Commissioner .

The parties and the Government Commissioner must be informed DATE in advance of the date of the site inspection .

The visit to the site shall be conducted in their presence . A report shall be produced on the inspection . ”

“ The judge may not appoint experts .

In order to assess the value of non - transferable real property and immovable property which present particular valuation difficulties , he may exceptionally be assisted during the inspection of the site by a notary or retired notary appointed from a list drawn up for the whole area within the court of appeal ’s territorial jurisdiction by its president , on the basis of proposals from the regional Chamber of Notaries .

Exceptionally , he may also appoint a person whom he considers suitably qualified to provide advice in the event of technical problems concerning the assessment of compensation sums other than those referred to in the preceding paragraph . ”

“ The public hearing shall be held on completion of the inspection of the site .

At the latest during this inspection , the judge shall inform the parties or their representative , as well as the Government Commissioner , of the place and time of the hearing , which may take place outside the LOC in which the court sits . ”

“ The judge shall hear the representative of the expropriating authority and the expropriated parties ... The parties may discuss only points covered in the memorials which they have submitted .

“ The Government Commissioner shall present oral observations and file submissions .

The Government Commissioner ’s submissions shall contain the elements needed for the court to be informed of the situation .

In particular , they shall include a reasoned valuation of the main compensation and , as appropriate , of the subsidiary compensation due to each owner of rights and , where necessary , information that would allow for automatic application of the provisions of Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL to L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL . ”

“ Where CARDINAL of the parties is unable to produce certain documents in support of its memorials , the judge may , where he considers this necessary for the resolution of the case , authorise the party , at its request , to produce these documents at the hearing . ”

“ The judge shall rule within the limits of the parties’ submissions as they appear in their memorials and of the Government Commissioner ’s submissions where the latter proposes a valuation that is lower than that of the expropriating party . In such a case , the Government Commissioner ’s written submissions must be appended to the case file .

If the respondent has not lodged a memorial in reply to the applicant within DATE provided for in LAW , he shall be deemed to abide by his offers if the respondent is the expropriating authority , and by his reply to the offers if the respondent is the expropriated party .

Where the expropriated party has failed to reply to the authority ’s offers and to produce a memorial in reply , the judge shall determine the compensation on the basis of the evidence available to him . ”

“ The judgment shall set out , inter alia , the reasons in point of law or of fact for which all awards of main or subsidiary compensation are granted . Where the judgment rejects the Government Commissioner ’s submissions proposing a valuation that is lower than that of the expropriating authority , it must specifically state the reasons for such a rejection .

The judgment may be delivered by the judge without the Government Commissioner being present .

The judgment shall be notified by the most diligent party to the other party and to the Government Commissioner . ”

“ Appeals may be lodged by the parties or by the Government Commissioner within DATE from notification of the judgment ...

“ On pain of having his appeal dismissed , an appellant must lodge with or send to the registry of the ORG , within DATE of the date of the appeal , his memorial and the documents which he intends to produce .

The respondent must lodge with or send to the registry of the ORG , within DATE following notification of the appellant ’s memorial , his memorial in reply and the documents which he intends to produce .

The memorials and documents must be produced in as many copies are there are parties , plus CARDINAL additional copy .

The registrar shall serve each party and the Government Commissioner with a copy of the documents filed with the registry as soon as these are received .

A cross - appeal may be brought by the parties in their memorial in reply or by a declaration made at the registry of the ORG . If brought by the Government Commissioner , it must take the second form . ”

“ The ORG [ of Appeal ] shall rule on the basis of memorials . However , the parties may present argument briefly on aspects of the memorials they have submitted .

Exceptionally , an expert opinion may be prepared on the basis of a reasoned order from the court . In such a case , if the expropriating authority and the expropriated parties can not agree on the choice of a single expert , he shall be appointed by the President of the ORG . ”

“ The provisions of Articles R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( first paragraph ) and PERSON - CARDINAL shall be applicable to the appeal procedure . ”

The Government Commissioner has the “ role of party to the proceedings ” ( ORG d’Etat , ORG , CARDINAL DATE , ORG de Champigny - sur - Marne et Musso ) .

Intervention by the ORG official responsible for property as representative of the expropriating authority , under LAW DATE , and simultaneously as Government Commissioner , in application of LAW PERSON , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW , does not constitute a ground for alleging procedural impropriety ( ORG , ORG , judgment of DATE ) . In addition , ORG has ruled that the fact that the Government Commissioner ’s role was assumed by the inspector of property who drew up the preliminary opinion assessing the compensation offers on behalf of the expropriating authority does not contravene LAW , in that the Government Commissioner does not take part in ORG decision - making process ( Third ORG , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON Côte - d’Or , ORG . civ . ) III , no . CARDINAL ) .

Emphasising that no document may be lawfully submitted to the court without the parties having an opportunity to discuss it in adversarial proceedings and that “ this rule applies to all the courts , even in the absence of a specific text to this effect ” , ORG has ruled that , where the Government Commissioner ’s submissions propose a valuation lower than that of the expropriating authority or contains new elements , the expropriations judge is obliged to ensure that these have been brought to the attention of the parties and that the latter have an opportunity to discuss them freely before the end of the hearing ORG , CARDINAL judgments of DATE : PERSON c. ville de Rennes and PERSON ville de Saint - Nazaire , ORG . civ . III , judgments ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The report in question contained the following suggestion :

“ FOURTH SUGGESTION :

Proposal to amend Articles R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , PERSON . of LAW as regards the role of the Government Commissioner before ORG .

Under LAW , ORG ) of the département in which ORG is based exercises the functions of Government Commissioner before this ORG during proceedings to establish the compensation due to expropriated parties .

Although no text sets out the exact nature of his role , it is clear from the provisions of LAW that the Government Commissioner ’s main task is to provide the court , which can not , in principle , appoint an expert , with the information it requires and in particular with a reasoned assessment of the main and subsidiary compensation due to each owner whose property is subject to expropriation .

For this purpose , the Government Commissioner has access to information on tax statements and assessments held by the tax authorities and , in particular , to the land charges register constituted by all property transfers which must be formally registered .

However , doubts have been cast on the compatibility of certain aspects of the Government Commissioner ’s role with the principles derived from LAW .

Thus , it has been noted that the Government Commissioner may propose a valuation of the expropriated assets that is lower than the valuation suggested by the expropriating authority ( Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) ; he may lodge an appeal or cross - appeal against the judgment determining the level of compensation ( LAW seq . of LAW ) , although he may not appeal on points of law , except as regards costs imposed on him for the proceedings ; and , where he is not the appellant , the Government Commissioner ’s submissions are not served on the parties but simply included in the case file ( LAW ) .

Expropriated parties have also indicated that they have experienced difficulties in obtaining information contained in the land charges register , to which the Government Commissioner has unimpeded access by virtue of his official functions . ORG

Finally , it has been observed that , whilst the Government Commissioner is not the ORG ’s representative before ORG , there may be , at least in appearance , a certain ambiguity where the ORG itself is the expropriating authority , particularly when , under LAW of LAW , the ORG is represented before ORG in a number of départements by ORG .

As long ago as DATE , the ORG included in his DATE report a letter , dated DATE , in which he drew the Minister of ORG ’s attention to the Government Commissioner ’s role .

Whilst it is unnecessary to state that the Commissioner does not participate in the decision - making process within ORG , which is by no means obliged to follow his submissions , and although ORG ensures that expropriated parties’ rights are respected and the adversarial principle as defined in LAW is effectively complied with , it would nonetheless appear desirable , in order to put an end to possible doubts regarding the conformity of certain aspects of the Government Commissioner ’s current role with the requirements of LAW and particularly LAW , to redefine his functions , limiting them to those of a specialist entrusted with providing the judge and the parties to the compensation proceedings with the information held by ORG on the state of the property market , so that this situation is improved . ”

Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE reforming land registration provides , inter alia :

“ For each municipality , a land charges register shall be maintained by the land registrars , in which , as information is submitted , extracts from published documents shall be registered under the name of each owner and by building , with a reference to their classification in the archives .

The land charges register shall present an up - to - date profile of the legal status of buildings as indicated by the published documents . ”

“ No changes to the legal status of a building may be the subject of a cadastral transfer if the deed or judicial decision recording this change has not previously been published in the land charges register . ”

DATE of Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE is worded as follows ( version as amended by Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ) :

“ Any request for information shall be drawn up in CARDINAL typed or printed copies on a form supplied by the authorities or on one copied in accordance with the conditions established by an instruction published in ORG , the second copy being obtained by duplication .

Subject to the application of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , such requests must include :

( CARDINAL ) All items of information provided for in LAW DATE which are necessary to identify the natural persons or legal entities on whose behalf the information is requested ;

The individual designation of the buildings referred to in the request , i.e. indications regarding the municipality in question , the section and identification number on the cadastral map and , for parts of buildings , an indication of the lot number .

Surnames and non - personal names indicated in the applications must appear in capital letters . First names shall be written in small letters .

The applications shall be signed and dated by those submitting them . ”


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

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the election committee for the GPE zone refused to declare eligible the list of candidates for the NORP municipal elections submitted by the applicant in his capacity as representative of the ORG pel progrès PERSON list . The election committee based its decision on the fact that he had not carried out certain mandatory formalities which had been pointed out to him in respect of CARDINAL non - NORP candidates who were ORG citizens .

The applicant applied to ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE for judicial review of the election committee ’s decision on the ground , inter alia , that , as he had been travelling , he had not had known of the election committee ’s fax requesting him to carry out the formalities in question until TIME before the deadline for submitting lists of candidates . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed his application . It observed that CARDINAL candidates on the list , who were not NORP nationals but were citizens of Member GPE of ORG , had failed to provide certain documents required of ORG citizens wishing to stand in municipal elections and proving , among other things , their residence in GPE . The court went on to note that the applicant had had an opportunity of carrying out the formalities in question , but had not done so . It added that if the applicant had to travel , he had a duty , as representative of the electoral list and in accordance with the requirements relating to election proceedings , to take adequate measures to ensure that he was informed of the election committee ’s decisions without delay . The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG , which was dismissed in a decision of CARDINAL DATE .

“ CARDINAL . The Cortes Generales represent the NORP people and are composed of ORG and the ORG .

The Cortes Generales exercise the legislative power of the ORG ... ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before ORG by Ms M. Sykulska - Przybysz , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , Mr J. Wolasiewicz of ORG .

On DATE the ORG remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of armed robbery .

On DATE the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group . The first hearing in the case was held on DATE . ORG held CARDINAL hearings and heard CARDINAL witnesses . However , a number of hearings in DATE were cancelled .

On DATE the President of the Criminal Section IV of the ORG assigned a new judge rapporteur . Consequently , the trial had to be restarted .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant ’s release under police supervision . On DATE the trial court made a further severance order and split the case into CARDINAL separate cases . It appears that the charges against the applicant were to be examined in CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings .

It appears that the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG a complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time and asked for compensation . He relied on CARDINAL of the LAW June CARDINAL on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed his complaint as unfounded , having regard to the criteria set out in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , namely the conduct of the court and of the parties , the nature of the case , its factual and legal complexity and what was at stake in the proceedings for the complainant . It held that there had been no unreasonable delays in the proceedings within the meaning of LAW . In respect of the proceedings in the applicant ’s case , ORG found that there had been no delays after the entry into force of DATE Act .

The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the decision given by ORG in the case of ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-V


Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Split . She is represented before the ORG by Mr O. Roje , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against her employer , company D .- V. d.d . , in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking payment of her salary arrears and that the defendant be ordered to pay the mandatory contributions to the relevant funds . She also applied for an interim measure ( privremena mjera ) to secure the payment .

In the period before the entry into force of the LAW in respect of GPE ( DATE ) , the court held several hearings , and a financial expert report was drawn up . The applicant was absolved from bearing the costs of proceedings .

On DATE the applicant brought another civil action in ORG against the company NORP d.d , , which was the sole shareholder of her employer . Her claim was the same as the one in the proceedings instituted in DATE .

On DATE ORG joined these CARDINAL sets of proceedings .

At a hearing held on DATE the ORG gave a judgment , accepting in part the applicant ’s claim for the payment of her salary arrears . It declared the part of the applicant ’s claim that the defendants be ordered to pay the mandatory contributions inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction . It also dismissed the applicant ’s request for an interim measure .

On DATE the defendants lodged an appeal against the above judgment . The applicant lodged an appeal on DATE , and the case - file was forwarded to ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) opened bankruptcy proceedings against company D .- V. d.d . The applicant subsequently submitted her claims in the bankruptcy proceedings .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining about the length of civil proceedings pending before ORG .

On DATE the ORG stayed the proceedings against company D .- V. d.d . , since the bankruptcy proceedings had meanwhile been opened against it . As to the claim against company NORP d.d . , it upheld the first - instance judgment as regards the applicant ’s salary arrears , and quashed the decision on lack of jurisdiction as regards the remaining applicant ’s claims . Thus the decision concerning the applicant ’s salary arrears became final and as to the remainder of the applicant ’s claim the case was remitted to the first - instance court .

Following the constitutional complaint by the applicant , on DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It awarded the applicant a sum of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) , and also ordered ORG to decide the case in the shortest time possible but DATE after the publication of the decision of ORG in ORG .

ORG decision was published in ORG of DATE , and the DATE period expired on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh complaint about the length of proceedings with ORG . On DATE that court found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time for the period after the LAW court ’s decision . It awarded the applicant a sum of HRK CARDINAL and also ordered ORG to decide the case in the shortest time possible but DATE form the receipt of the case file at that court . The case file was returned to ORG on DATE .

At the hearing held on DATE the applicant withdrew her claim and sought only the costs of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had withdrawn her claim and awarded the applicant the costs of the proceedings . Thus the proceedings were finally concluded .


CASE OF CHA'ARE SHALOM VE TSEDEK v. FRANCE

No violation of Art. 9;No violation of Art. 14+9

Kashrut is the name given to all the NORP laws on the types of food which may be eaten and how to prepare them . The main principles applying to kosher food are to be found in the NORP , the holy scripture comprising the first CARDINAL books of the Bible – the Pentateuch – namely PERSON , Exodus , GPE , ORG and ORG .

At the Creation only food from plants could be eaten by man ( Gen. i , CARDINAL ) . Eating meat was not authorised until after the Flood ( Gen. ix , CARDINAL ) and then only under very strict conditions . The NORP absolutely forbids the consumption of blood , since blood is the medium of life and life must not be absorbed with flesh but poured on the earth like water ( Deut . PERSON , DATE and DATE ) . In addition , certain animals are regarded as unclean and consumption of certain parts of animals is also forbidden .

Among quadrupeds , for example , only animals that are both cloven - hoofed and ruminants may be eaten ; that excludes solidungulates like horses and camels and non - ruminating quadrupeds like pigs and rabbits ( Lev . xi ; LOC . xiv ) . Among aquatic species , only fishes with both fins and scales may be eaten , but not crustaceans or shellfish . Among flying creatures , only non - carnivorous birds , such as grain - eating , farmyard fowls and some types of game may be eaten . Insects and reptiles are totally forbidden .

The PERSON ( PERSON . vii , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; xvii , CARDINAL ) prohibits consumption of the blood of authorised mammals and birds , and slaughter must be carried out “ as the [ Lord has ] commanded ” ( Deut . PERSON , DATE ) . It is forbidden to eat meat from animals that have died of natural causes or have been killed by other animals ( Deut . xiv , CARDINAL ) . It is likewise forbidden to eat meat from an animal showing signs of disease or blemishes at the time of slaughter ( Num . xi , CARDINAL ) . Meat and other products of permitted animals ( such as milk , cream or butter ) must be eaten and prepared separately , in and with separate utensils , because the NORP prohibits the cooking of a kid in its mother 's milk ( ORG . xxii ; Deut . xiv , CARDINAL ) .

With a view to ensuring compliance with all the prohibitions laid down in the NORP , later commentators established very detailed rules concerning , in particular , the approved method of slaughter , initially by handing down the oral tradition but later by compiling an encyclopaedic collection of commentaries – the NORP .

DATE of the above rules on the eating of meat necessitates special slaughter processes . As it is forbidden for NORP to eat any blood whatsoever , animals for slaughter , after being blessed , must have their throats slit ; more precisely , they must be killed with a single stroke of a very sharp knife in such a way that an immediate , clean and deep cut is made through the trachea , the oesophagus , the carotid arteries and the jugular veins , so that the greatest possible quantity of blood will flow . The meat must then be steeped in water and salted , still with the aim of removing any trace of blood . Certain organs , like the liver , must be grilled to remove blood from them . Other parts , like the sciatic nerve , blood vessels or the fat around the vital organs , must be removed .

In addition , immediately after slaughter , the animal must be examined for any signs of disease or anomaly ; if there is the slightest doubt on that point , the meat is declared unfit for consumption . Ritual slaughter DATE shechitah – may be performed only by a shochet , who must be a devout man of unimpeachable moral integrity and scrupulous honesty . Lastly , until it comes to be sold , the meat must be kept under the supervision of a kashrut inspector . The competence and personal integrity of ritual slaughterers and kashrut inspectors are subject to continuous appraisal by a religious authority . In order to guarantee consumers that their meat has been slaughtered in accordance with the prescriptions of NORP law , the religious authority certifies it as “ kosher ” . Such certification gives rise to the levying of a tax known as slaughter tax or rabbinical tax .

NORP In GPE , as in many other NORP countries , the ritual slaughter required by NORP and NORP for religious reasons comes into conflict with the principle that an animal to be slaughtered , after being restrained , must first be stunned , that is plunged into a state of unconsciousness in which it is kept until death intervenes , in order to spare it any suffering . Ritual slaughter is nevertheless authorised under NORP law and by ORG and ORG of DATE ( see “ Relevant law and practice ” below ) .

Ritual slaughter is regulated in NORP law by Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , promulgated to implement LAW , as amended by Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . LAW provides :

“ It is forbidden to perform ritual slaughter save in a slaughterhouse . Subject to the provisions of the fourth paragraph of this Article , ritual slaughter may be performed only by slaughterers authorised for the purpose by religious bodies which have been approved by ORG , on a proposal from the Minister of the ORG . ORG must be able to show documentary proof of such authorisation .

The approved bodies mentioned in the previous paragraph must inform the Minister of Agriculture of the names of authorised persons and those from whom authorisation has been withdrawn . If no religious body has been approved , the prefect of the département in which the slaughterhouse used for ritual slaughter is situated may grant individual authorisations . ”

On DATE the approval necessary for power to authorise slaughterers was granted to ORG alone . ORG is part of ORG ( “ the ACIP ” ) , which is an offshoot of LOC , the institution set up by PERSON I by means of LAW of DATE to administer NORP worship in GPE . Following the separation of the Churches and the ORG in DATE , the NORP congregations of GPE , numbering CARDINAL faithful , formed themselves into NORP liturgical associations ( see “ Relevant law and practice ” below ) under an umbrella organisation called ORG of GPE , which kept the name NORP .

Under LAW its statute , the aims of the Central Consistory are to serve the general interests of NORP worship , to safeguard the freedom needed to take part in it , to defend the rights of the congregations and to see to the founding , survival and development of joint institutions and services for the benefit of affiliated bodies . It also seeks to preserve the independence and dignity of the rabbinate , to ensure the permanence of the office of Chief Rabbi of GPE , to encourage recruitment of rabbis by organising ORG of GPE and to ensure , by general rules applicable to all the affiliated bodies , the preservation of unity , discipline and orderliness in the performance of acts of worship . It represents the general interests of NORP ORG and is dedicated to maintaining and preserving spiritual ties with GPE and NORP congregations throughout the world .

The PERSON includes congregations representing most of the main denominations within Judaism , with the exception of the liberals , who believe that the NORP should be interpreted in the light of DATE living conditions , and the ultra - orthodox , who advocate , on the contrary , a strict interpretation of the NORP .

ORG is composed of the Chief Rabbi of GPE , from the ORG , whose registered office is in FAC , GPE , the rabbi of the orthodox congregation of FAC , the rabbi of the NORP congregation of strict observance and the rabbi of the traditionalist congregation of FAC . It is empowered to issue the authorisations needed to obtain a card permitting access to the slaughterhouses . The rabbinical court , or PERSON , which rules on questions of religious law ( marriage , divorce and conversions ) , supervises observance of the dietary laws and appoints and monitors the kashrut slaughterers and inspectors employed by the PERSON .

NORP Since section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides that the Republic may not recognise , pay stipends to or subsidise any religious denomination ( except in the CARDINAL départements of ORG , ORG and GPE , where ORG still applies ) , the income of all the liturgical associations in GPE , of whatever denomination , is derived from the contributions and gifts of their adherents . According to the Government , CARDINAL of the Central Consistory 's resources comes from the slaughter tax , which is levied at the rate of MONEY ( ORG ) per kilo of beef sold .

NORP The liturgical association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek is an association declared on DATE with its registered office in FAC , GPE . According to its statute , the applicant association 's aims are “ to organise , subsidise , encourage , revive , assist , promote and finance , in GPE , public NORP worship and any other related or connected activities of a religious nature which might , directly or indirectly , lead towards the object it pursues ” . In addition , “ It will seek to co - ordinate the spiritual actions of other NORP liturgical associations , particularly those aimed at fostering observance of kashrut . It will assist with the promotion and creation of all social , educational , cultural and spiritual activities as far as its means permit and provide both moral and financial support to poor families belonging to the congregation or those experiencing temporary difficulties . ”

The Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek association now has CARDINAL subscribing members and CARDINAL adherents , some of whom run a total of CARDINAL butcher 's shops , CARDINAL restaurants and CARDINAL caterers in the GPE region alone . In addition it has CARDINAL outlets for the sale of deep - frozen food in the GPE region , ORG and GPE .

The association publishes NORP calendars , has a PERSON ( study centre for young rabbis ) , CARDINAL centres for the study of the NORP and CARDINAL synagogues , in GPE and GPE . It is administered by a rabbinical committee which has sole jurisdiction over religious issues and is composed of chief rabbis , rabbis , well - known members of the congregation and kashrut slaughterers and inspectors .

Originally , the applicant association came into being as a minority movement which split away from the NORP of GPE . Its members are determined to practise their religion in the strictest orthodoxy . In particular , the applicant association wishes to perform ritual slaughter according to stricter rules than those followed by the slaughterers authorised by the GPE Central Consistory as regards examination of slaughtered animals for any signs of disease or anomalies .

The prescriptions concerning kosher meat , derived from GPE , were codified in a compendium called PERSON ( ORG ) written by Rabbi PERSON ( DATE ) , which lays down very strict rules . However , some later commentators accepted less constraining rules , particularly with regard to examination of the lungs of slaughtered animals . But a number of orthodox NORP , particularly those who belong to NORP congregations originally from GPE , including the members of the applicant association , wish to eat meat from animals slaughtered according to the most stringent requirements of the Shulchan Aruch . This type of meat is referred to by the NORP word “ glatt ” , meaning “ smooth ” .

For meat to qualify as “ glatt ” , the slaughtered animal must not have any impurity , or in other words any trace of a previous illness , especially in the lungs . In particular , there must be no filamentary adhesions between the pleura and the lung . This requirement of purity mainly concerns adult sheep and cattle , which are more likely to have contracted disease at some point of their existence . But , according to the applicant association , the ritual slaughterers under the authority of the Beth Din , the rabbinical court of the ORG , the only body to have been approved DATE on DATE by ORG , now no longer make a detailed examination of the lungs and are less exacting about purity and the presence of filaments so that , in the applicant association 's submission , butchers selling meat certified as kosher by the Central Consistory are selling meat which its members consider impure and therefore unfit for consumption .

The applicant association submitted that it was therefore obliged , in order to be able to make “ glatt ” kosher meat available to its adherents , to slaughter illegally and to obtain supplies from GPE .

The Government , for their part , produced a certificate from the Chief Rabbi of GPE to the effect that there were butcher 's shops supervised by the PERSON where the members of the Cha'are Shalom association could obtain “ glatt ” meat . In addition , according to figures supplied by the Government , the applicant association , which has QUANTITY employees , including CARDINAL ritual slaughterers , had a turnover of ORG CARDINAL in DATE , despite refusal of authorisation to perform ritual slaughter , and more than ORG CARDINAL of this sum came from slaughter tax . In DATE the turnover was ORG , of which ORG came from the slaughter tax , and in DATE the income from the slaughter tax came to more than FRF CARDINAL . The tax levied by the applicant association for slaughter amounted to ORG CARDINAL for QUANTITY of kosher meat sold .

DATE , when it was registered only as a cultural ( rather than liturgical ) association , the applicant association certified as being “ glatt ” kosher the meat sold in the butcher 's shops of its members . This meat was either imported from GPE or came from animals slaughtered in GPE in accordance with its own religious prescriptions , and therefore without certification from the GPE PERSON . Civil proceedings were brought against it by the ORG , which alleged that it had given a misleading description of goods offered for sale , since it had fraudulently labelled the meat sold as kosher .

However , the ORG 's action was dismissed by ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , later upheld by ORG , on the ground that LAW on the separation of the Churches and the State did not allow the courts to rule on the question whether a liturgical association like the applicant was empowered to guarantee that meat offered for sale was kosher ; on the other hand , ORG noted that it had not been contested that the applicant association had complied with the strict rules concerning ritual slaughter and inspection .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant association asked the Minister of the ORG to propose its approval with a view to practising ritual slaughter . This application was refused by a decision of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that the association was not sufficiently representative within the NORP community and was not a religious association within the meaning of Part PERSON of the LAW of DATE on the separation of the ORG and the ORG .

The applicant association appealed to ORG , pleading an infringement of freedom of religion , guaranteed both by CARDINAL of the LAW of DATE on the separation of the ORG and the ORG and by LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the association 's appeal , giving the following reasons :

The grounds given for the impugned decision were that the association was not sufficiently representative within the NORP community and that it was not a liturgical association within the meaning of Part IV of the LAW of DATE . In making that decision the Minister of the ORG refused to accept that the association was a religious body coming within the scope of the above - mentioned provisions .

Although LAW appellant 's statute describes it as a liturgical association governed by the provisions of LAW of DATE , ... [ the applicant association ] has not established , as the evidence stands at present , that it subsidises or that it is an offshoot of an association which subsidises the continuation of and public participation in NORP worship . The fact that it makes kosher meat available for sale in CARDINAL retail butcher 's and CARDINAL outlets for the sale of deep - frozen food is not sufficient to give the association the character of a religious body which may be proposed by the Minister of the Interior for approval by the Minister of Agriculture ... The Minister of the ORG was thus able to take the impugned decision without committing any error as to the facts or the law or any manifest error of assessment , nor did he infringe the freedom of worship , since he did no more than verify the status of the appellant organisation in the interests of public policy and pursuant to the provisions referred to above .

Lastly , it has not been established that the Minister 's decision was taken on grounds that had nothing to do with public policy requirements and was prompted by a desire to reserve the benefit of approval for the only NORP religious body which has obtained it ... ”

The applicant association appealed against this judgment to the ORG d'Etat . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d'Etat dismissed the appeal on the following grounds :

... The documents in the file do not establish that the NORP liturgical association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek , which does not organise any worship or dispense any teaching , has on account of its activities the character of a ' religious body ' for the purposes of LAW of DATE . Consequently , by refusing to propose it for approval by ORG , the Minister of the Interior did not commit any error of law and gave sufficient grounds for his decision .

[ Lastly , ] in taking the impugned decision the Minister of the ORG only used the powers conferred on him by the above - mentioned provisions with a view to ensuring that ritual slaughter is performed in conditions consistent with public policy requirements , public hygiene and respect for public freedoms . Accordingly , the appellant association may not validly maintain that the Minister interfered in the functioning of a religious body or that he infringed the freedom of religion guaranteed in particular by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and LAW [ on ] Human Rights ... ”

Concurrently with its application of CARDINAL DATE for approval as a religious body , the applicant association submitted on DATE to the prefect of the département of ORG an application on behalf of CARDINAL ritual slaughterers who were members of the association , and were authorised by it , for specific individual authorisations to perform ritual slaughter in an establishment in that département .

On DATE the prefect refused this application on the grounds that LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE empowered prefects to authorise individual slaughterers only where no religious body had been approved for the religion in question and that it was clear that ORG had been given the approval concerned .

The applicant association appealed against this decision to ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal against the prefect 's decision on the following grounds :

The evidence placed before the ORG shows , and this has not been contested , that by a decision of DATE the Minister of Agriculture , acting on the basis of LAW of the above - mentioned decree of DATE , approved the ' ORG as a body empowered to appoint ritual slaughterers authorised to perform ritual slaughter in the manner prescribed by the NORP religion . That approval prevents prefects from issuing individual authorisations under LAW permitting persons or institutions adhering to the religion concerned to perform ritual slaughter . It is clear , particularly in the light of LAW , that the cultural association ' Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek ' proclaims its adherence to the NORP religion . Consequently , and even though the association apparently refuses for religious reasons to recognise the authority of ORG , the individual application it made for a derogation authorising it to perform ritual slaughter in a slaughterhouse in the département of ORG could only be refused . Accordingly , when the prefect of ORG , in refusing the application on DATE , applied these legal rules , as he was required to do , without becoming involved in the internal dissensions of the NORP religion , he did not infringe the principle of equality in the application of administrative rules or the principle of freedom of worship set forth in LAW of DATE on the separation of the ORG and the ORG or the freedom of conscience and religion enunciated ... in LAW for the protection of LAW . ”

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d'Etat upheld the above judgment on appeal , giving the following reasons :

“ The provisions ... of the third paragraph of LAW of DATE give prefects the power to authorise ritual slaughterers only where no religious body has been approved for the religion concerned under the first paragraph of the same Article . It is clear that ORG has obtained the approval in question . Consequently , the prefect of ORG was required to refuse , as he did , the application made by the appellant association . ”

DATE LAW provides :

“ GPE is a secular Republic ; it shall ensure the equality before the law of all citizens , without distinction as to origin , race or religion . It shall respect all beliefs . ”

The relevant provisions of the Act of DATE on the separation of the ORG and the ORG are worded as follows :

“ The Republic shall ensure freedom of conscience . It shall guarantee free participation in religious worship , subject only to the restrictions laid down hereinafter in the interest of public order . ”

“ The Republic shall not recognise , pay stipends to or subsidise any religious denomination . Consequently , from DATE in DATE following promulgation of this Act all expenditure relating to participation in worship shall be removed from ORG , département and municipality budgets . However , these budgets may include appropriations for expenditure on chaplaincy services intended to ensure freedom of worship in public institutions such as senior and junior high schools , primary schools , hospices , mental hospitals and prisons ... ”

“ Associations formed in order to meet the costs of a religious denomination , to ensure its continued existence or to foster participation in public acts of worship shall be constituted in accordance with sections CARDINAL et seq . of Part CARDINAL of the Act of DATE . They shall , in addition , be subject to the provisions of the present Act . ”

“ These associations must have as their sole object participation in religious worship and be composed of at least

– seven persons in municipalities with a population of CARDINAL ;

– fifteen persons in municipalities with a population of CARDINAL ;

– CARDINAL adults permanently or temporarily resident in the religious district concerned in municipalities with a population of CARDINAL ;

Associations may in addition receive contributions as provided in section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE and the proceeds from collections held to meet the costs of worship and may levy charges for : religious ceremonies and services even in the form of an endowment ; renting of benches and seats ; provision of objects intended for use in funeral services in religious buildings and for the decoration of such buildings ...

Under the conditions laid down by sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act of CARDINAL DATE , on administrative supervision of donations and bequests , liturgical associations may receive testamentary gifts and donations inter vivos intended to help them achieve their objects or subject to religious or liturgical obligations ...

They may not , in any form whatsoever , receive subsidies from the ORG , the départements or municipalities . Sums allotted for repairs to the buildings used for public worship shall not be considered subsidies , whether or not those buildings are listed as historic monuments . ”

“ These associations may , in the forms laid down by LAW DATE , set up unions with a central administrative service or governing body ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the Countryside Code provides :

“ It is an offence to ill - treat domestic animals or wild animals that have been tamed or are being held in captivity . ”

The relevant provisions of Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , promulgated to implement LAW , are worded as follows :

“ The provisions of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL below shall be applicable in establishments for the slaughter of oxen , sheep , goats , pigs , horses , poultry , domestic rabbits and game . ”

“ All animals must be restrained before slaughter . In the case of ritual slaughter this must be done before the throat is slit .

Restraint techniques must be designed and used in such a way as to avoid all unnecessary suffering , excitement and injury to the animals . Halters may not be tightened by means of twisting - sticks .

It is forbidden to hang animals up before they have been stunned , or , in the case of ritual slaughter , before their throats have been slit .

The provisions of the present Article shall not apply to the slaughter of poultry , domestic rabbits and small game where these are stunned after being hung up . ”

“ ORG , that is the use of an authorised technique which immediately plunges animals into a state of unconsciousness , shall be compulsory before slaughter , save in the following cases :

NORP ritual slaughter . ”

“ It is forbidden to perform ritual slaughter save in a slaughterhouse ( Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , LAW . Subject to the provisions of the fourth paragraph of this Article , ritual slaughter may be performed only by slaughterers authorised for the purpose by religious bodies which have been approved by ORG , on a proposal from the Minister of the ORG . ORG must be able to show documentary proof of such authorisation .

If no religious body has been approved , the prefect of the département in which the slaughterhouse used for ritual slaughter is situated may grant individual authorisations on application from the persons concerned . ”

LAW , of DATE , provides , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . This Convention shall apply to the movement , lairaging , restraint , stunning and slaughter of domestic solipeds , ruminants , pigs , rabbits and poultry .

“ Animals shall be restrained where necessary immediately before slaughtering and , with the exceptions set out in LAW , shall be stunned by an appropriate method . ”

“ In the case of the ritual slaughter of animals of the bovine species , they shall be restrained before slaughter by mechanical means designed to spare them all avoidable pain , suffering , agitation , injury or contusions . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG may authorise derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases :

– slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals ;

“ CARDINAL . Each Contracting Party shall make certain of the skill of persons who are professionally engaged in the restraint , stunning and slaughter of animals .

Each Contracting Party shall ensure that the instruments , apparatus or installations necessary for the restraint and stunning of animals comply with the requirements of the LAW . ”

“ ORG permitting slaughter in accordance with religious ritual shall ensure , when it does not itself issue the necessary authorisations , that animal sacrificers are duly authorised by the religious bodies concerned . ”

Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG to member GPE on the slaughter of animals ( adopted by ORG on DATE at the FAC meeting of ORG ) includes the following provision :

Recommends to the Governments of the member States :

vii . if they authorise slaughter in accordance with religious rites without prior stunning , to take all possible measures to protect the welfare of the animals concerned by ensuring that such slaughter is carried out in appropriate slaughterhouses by trained personnel , who observe as far as possible the provisions in LAW .

The NORP Directive of DATE on stunning of animals before slaughter provides , inter alia :

“ Whereas ... the practice of stunning animals by appropriate recognised techniques should be generalised ;

Whereas , however , it is necessary to take account of the particular requirements of certain religious rites ;

LAW provides :

“ The present Directive does not affect national provisions related to special methods of slaughter which are required for particular religious rites . ”

The NORP Directive of DATE on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing provides , inter alia :

“ Whereas at the time of slaughter or killing animals should be spared any avoidable pain or suffering ;

Whereas , however , it is necessary ... to take account of the particular requirements of certain religious rites ;

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( Association cultuelle des israélites nord - africains de Paris – Liturgical Association of NORP in GPE , ORG . p. CARDINAL ) , the PERSON d'Etat held :

“ ... In requiring ritual slaughter performed under conditions derogating from the provisions of ordinary law to be carried out only by ritual slaughterers authorised by religious bodies approved by the Minister of Agriculture on a proposal by the Minister of the ORG , the Prime Minister did not interfere in the affairs of religious bodies and did not infringe the freedom of worship but took the measures needed for exercise of that freedom in a manner consistent with public policy ... ”


Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Sverre Erik Jebens;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

On DATE the DATE newspaper ORG published a number of articles written by the applicants .

On the cover page the newspaper published a title , covering CARDINAL of the page . It read “ The GPE prosecuting authorities confirm : the Minister took ” ( “ Warszawska prokuratura ustaliła : Minister wziął ” ) , and underneath there was a photograph of a ORG with information that the price of the most expensive version was over CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) and then a paragraph stating that Minister PERSON , who was at that time the head of ORG , had accepted such a car as a gift from the businessman PERSON

The paragraph read :

Minister PERSON , the Head of ORG , received from businessman PERSON a luxury car . The case came to light because the ORG , worth over CARDINAL ORG , was [ subsequently ] stolen . The head of the LOC prosecutor ’s office , Z Ż. , has confirmed that PERSON had been “ using ” that car . Minister [ M.]S. did not want to talk to us about the car from the businessman . ”

On the same front page the editor published a note , accompanied by a photograph of GPE :

“ Sir , as you have refused to give us an interview about the car which you received from PERSON , you are requested , in accordance with LAW , to answer the following questions : CARDINAL . Why did you accept a gift from PERSON in the form of a luxury car ? CARDINAL . For how long did you use it ? CARDINAL . Do you think it is correct for a ORG agent to accept for use a car owned by a businessman ? CARDINAL . Were you not afraid that accepting that gift amounted to contracting a debt towards him which you would be obliged to pay back in the future ? ”

On the third page an article signed by both applicants was published , entitled “ S. used ” ( “ S. używał ” ) . Its leading paragraph read :

“ The presidential minister and Head of ORG does not want , at least for the time being , to explain why he has accepted an expensive car from a NORP businessman with a NORP passport .

The article went on :

“ W.W. , a well - to - do businessman with a NORP passport , is the official owner of a car which was stolen from S. ... He has extensive contacts with politicians . He emphasises his close relationship with the President , PERSON . ...

On DATE the Minister ’s driver was driving the car to have it washed . When he stopped at traffic lights at FAC in GPE , the car door was opened by a masked man who hit the driver in the face with a pistol he was holding and threw him out of the car onto the tarmac . Then he drove away , the tyres screeching .

The GPE prosecuting office started an investigation .

Witnesses have stated that PERSON had used the ORG – prosecutor PERSON has told us : ‘ We discontinued the investigation in DATE as we could not identify the perpetrator.’

When ORG spoke with him , PERSON lied . He tried to explain that he could not remember events which had taken place DATE and told us that PERSON had never so much as sat in that car .

‘ It was the driver who was my friend . And I did not know that he worked as [ ORG ’s PERSON , he said . ‘ [ M.]S. himself never set foot in that car . ... ‘ I do n’t remember what the car ’s documents PERSON , he added , ‘ I have no more time to talk’ .

PERSON told us , via his secretary , that he did not have anything to say about the ORG . ”

On DATE GPE brought a civil action in ORG requesting legal protection of his personal rights . He requested that the defendants be ordered to cease publishing allegations that the plaintiff had accepted an expensive car as a gift , that the newspaper publish an apology , and that damages of ORG CARDINAL be awarded to him , which he undertook to pay to a charity .

On DATE ORG partly allowed the plaintiff ’s claim . It ordered the applicants and the editorinchief to publish an apology on the cover page of their newspaper for having published the untrue information that the plaintiff had accepted an expensive gift , which was to be worded as follows :

“ The editors and authors of the articles entitled “ [ ORG Minister took ” and “ [ ORG remains silent ” apologise for publishing the untrue information that he had accepted an expensive car as a gift ” .

It further determined the exact size of the apology . The court also ordered the applicants to pay , jointly with the newspaper ’s publisher and the editor in chief , MONEY ( ORG ) as compensation for the nonpecuniary damage he had suffered . The defendants were also ordered to pay , jointly , ORG CARDINAL in court fees .

During the proceedings the court questioned the applicants and the plaintiff . The court heard W.W. and PERSON , who had been driving the car on DATE of the theft , as witnesses . The court had regard to the case file of the investigation into the theft of the car which had been conducted by the GPE - FAC ; to an authorisation to use the car from DATE until DATE which W.W. had drawn up for the plaintiff ; and to a car insurance policy which he had had taken out in the plaintiff ’s name for that period .

The court found that PERSON and the plaintiff had planned to go to GPE together for DATE . As PERSON had had to fly to the GPE for business purposes shortly before the holiday , it had been agreed that the plaintiff would take his car and drive it to GPE where they would meet . PERSON had arranged for insurance for the plaintiff and prepared a document to the effect that he was authorised to use the car from DATE . The plaintiff had taken the car from PERSON at DATE . Subsequently , on DATE , when the plaintiff ’s driver had been driving the car to have it washed , he had been attacked at traffic lights and the car had been stolen from him . An investigation concerning the theft was subsequently instituted by ORG .

The court noted the steps which the applicants had taken when gathering the material for the article . The first applicant had become aware of the theft of the car in DATE . On DATE she had published a short article about it . Later on she had contacted the prosecuting authorities requesting information about the progress of the investigation . She had also contacted the President ’s Chancellery , where the plaintiff was working at that time , and requested to be given an interview concerning the theft . She was informed that the plaintiff would not give an interview on that subject .

In DATE the second applicant had started working on the case . He had interviewed PERSON and PERSON The court noted that PERSON had given very evasive answers to the questions .

Nonetheless , the court was of the view that the available evidence indicated that the car had indeed been given to the plaintiff for use for a limited period of time . There was no indication that the car had been accepted as a gift . The relevant evidence given by the plaintiff , PERSON and PERSON was fully coherent .

NORP The court therefore accepted that there was nothing to suggest that the circumstances in which the plaintiff had come into the possession of the car indicated corruption . The court emphasised that he should not have avoided the journalists as it was his responsibility as a public official to ensure that his acts were transparent . It also noted that the newspaper had published the articles only after he had refused to provide information concerning the car .

The court accepted the GPE assertion that they had been acting in the general interest and had wished to elucidate the circumstances surrounding the use of the car by the plaintiff . However , this motivation did not exempt them from the legal obligation to respect personal rights . They were obliged to act with diligence when gathering and publishing information .

The court accepted that the defendants had complied with this obligation when gathering material and information concerning the use of the car . They had had recourse to all the relevant sources .

NORP However , the court could not endorse the GPE conduct , having regard , firstly , to the titles of the articles . The title on the cover page , taking up CARDINAL of it , insinuated that the plaintiff had taken a bribe and that the GPE prosecuting authorities had conducted an investigation in this regard . The suggestion , obvious to any reader , was not borne out by the facts and was not compatible with the information which the newspaper had received from the prosecuting authorities or from any other source . Secondly , the same suggestion was made in the questions published on the first page . Neither the title nor the questions corresponded to the actual content of the article concerning the car published on the third page . This allegation , which had not been based on any facts , had breached the plaintiff ’s personal rights .

The court further considered that the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff was clearly excessive . However , as his personal rights had been breached , it considered that an amount of PLN MONEY was appropriate in the circumstances as it was more than merely symbolic .

The applicants appealed . They submitted that the court had wrongly found that the contested articles had suggested that PERSON had accepted a bribe and that the prosecuting authorities had conducted an investigation into the matter . They further argued that the first - instance judgment had breached ORG DATE of the LAW and LAW . They averred that the court had failed to take into consideration the standards set in the ORG ’s case - law . They referred to the judgments given in the cases of GPE v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL . As to the scope of the protection afforded to the private lives of politicians , they invoked the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL .

They were further of the view that the court had erred in finding that they had failed to act with diligence when formulating the title for the article . It had clearly been formulated in a manner compatible with journalistic freedom .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It agreed with the first - instance court that the text published on the cover page , including its title , had clearly suggested that the plaintiff had been suspected of corruption , that the prosecuting authorities had conducted an investigation concerning charges of corruption , and that the charges had proved well - founded . The court ’s findings in this respect were correct : this was indeed an impression which any reasonable reader might form , while it was clearly not borne out by the facts as established by the applicants . Likewise , the lower court ’s conclusion that the text on the third page did not balance the impact of the text on the front page was correct .

The appellate court accepted the applicants’ argument that they had been motivated by the protection of the general interest and by their obligation to inform the public of issues of such interest . It held that they had exercised their freedom of expression protected by LAW . Under this provision , politicians had to take into account that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider in respect of their acts . However , this freedom was not unlimited ; it went hand - in - hand with certain obligations and restrictions . It was for the purpose of the effective protection of such rights that journalists were obliged to act with particular diligence ; journalistic freedom could not be seen as conferring on journalists a right to act recklessly or arbitrarily . They had to check the veracity of the information which they intended to publish .

In the present case the information on the front page insinuated not only that the plaintiff had accepted the expensive car as a gift from W.W. , but also that the plaintiff had been suspected of taking bribes , and that the prosecuting authorities had conducted an investigation into the matter and found that suspicion well - founded . That was not true . The conclusions of the lower court concerning the possible assessment of the information published on the cover page and the text on the third page by the readers were well - founded and logical and had to be upheld .

The applicants appealed , essentially reiterating their arguments and indicating that LAW and the ORG ’s case - law should be used as the frame of reference for the legal assessment of the case .

On DATE ORG dismissed their cassation appeal , essentially sharing the conclusions of the appellate court .

In so far as the applicants complained that the appellate court had failed to address their arguments based on the ORG ’s case - law concerning LAW , ORG acknowledged that they were right to emphasise the importance of the right to the freedom of expression in a democratic society as interpreted by the ORG . Any restrictions imposed on the exercise of that right had to be closely scrutinised . It referred to the case - law of the ORG and reiterated that criticism in respect of politicians and their views and actions was acceptable in the context of a NORP society , even where it took the form of violent attacks , exaggeration or even provocation . However , these principles had always to be applied and fine - tuned in the context of concrete factual circumstances . In the present case , the ORG interest the public character of the plaintiff ’s function , was fully justified . Their diligence in gathering relevant information was not open to any criticism . It was only at the stage where they wrote and published the articles concerned that they had demonstrated negligence . Nothing in the material which they had gathered justified a conclusion that the plaintiff had received the car as a gift . This insinuation , placed on the first page of the newspaper , had clearly overstepped the limits of acceptable journalistic exaggeration .

ORG further held that the newspaper ’s editor - in - chief could not be held responsible as at the time when the articles had been published she had not been carrying out this function , and it dismissed the claim in so far as it had been directed against her .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , adopted in DATE , provides as follows :

“ GPE shall ensure freedom of the press and other means of social communication . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The freedom to express opinions and to acquire and disseminate information shall be secured to everyone .

Preventive censorship of the means of social communication and licensing of the press shall be forbidden . ORG may require that permits be sought and obtained for the operation of a radio or television station . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , in so far as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . Each citizen shall have the right to obtain information on the activities of organs of public authority as well as persons discharging public functions . Such right shall also include the obtaining of information on the activities of self - governing economic or professional organs , and other persons or organisational units , relating to the field in which they perform the duties of public authorities and manage municipal assets or property of ORG .

The right to obtain information shall encompass the right of access to documents and entry to sittings of collective organs of public authority formed by universal suffrage , with the opportunity to make sound and visual recordings .

Limitations upon the rights referred to in DATE and CARDINAL above may be imposed by statute solely to protect the freedoms and rights of other persons ... public order , security , or important economic interests of the ORG . ”

DATE the Civil Code contains a list of the rights referred to as “ personal ” ( dobra osobiste ) . It reads :

“ The personal rights of an individual , such as , in particular , the rights concerning health , liberty , reputation ( cześć ) , freedom of conscience , name or pseudonym , image , secrecy of correspondence , inviolability of the home , scientific or artistic work , [ as well as ] inventions and improvements shall be protected by civil law regardless of the protection enshrined in other legal provisions . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides for ways of redressing infringements of personal rights . A person facing the threat of an infringement may demand that the perpetrator desist from the wrongful activity , unless it is lawful . Where an infringement has taken place the person affected may , inter alia , request that the wrongdoer make a relevant statement in an appropriate form , or demand satisfaction from him / her . If the infringement of a personal right causes financial loss , damages may be sought before a civil court .