Violation of Art. 14+8;Just satisfaction reserved

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

The applicant was born in DATE in ORG , in the former GPE ( GPE ) , and lives in LOC .

The applicant is the natural daughter of a Mr Schildgen , who recognised her DATE after her birth . She lived in the territory of the former GPE until DATE , while her father lived in the ORG . The father and daughter corresponded regularly during this period , and after the reunification of GPE she visited him . He died DATE and DATE ( the precise date has not been specified ) .

The applicant subsequently made several attempts to assert her inheritance rights in the domestic courts .

On DATE the applicant applied for a certificate of inheritance attesting that she was entitled to at least a PERCENT share of Mr PERSON ’s estate .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Amtsgericht – Nachlassgericht ) refused the applicant ’s application , holding that , notwithstanding the reform of the law of succession following the introduction of LAW of DATE ( Erbgleichstellungsgesetz ) , the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act ( Gesetz über die rechtliche PERSON ) of DATE remained in force . The provision in question stated that children born outside marriage before DATE were not deemed to be statutory heirs ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also referred to a decision given by ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) on DATE ( see also “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” , paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in which the provision had been found to be in conformity with LAW ) .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Landgericht ) , arguing in particular that the law of the former GPE , which provided for equal treatment between children born within and outside marriage , should apply in her case . In any event , section CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act contravened Article CARDINAL ( principle of equality before the law ) of LAW as there was no objective justification for the difference in treatment .

In a decision of DATE ORG upheld ORG decision on the same grounds . It acknowledged , however , that the exclusion of children born outside marriage before DATE from the statutory right of inheritance placed them at a very clear disadvantage in relation to those born after that date and also to those covered by the law of the former GPE .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to it to establish whether the applicant was indeed Mr PERSON ’s natural daughter and whether there were any other heirs . If the applicant were to be entitled to PERCENT share of the estate , ORG should examine whether the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act was in conformity with LAW .

ORG confirmed at the outset that by virtue of the rules of private international law and , in particular , the settled case - law concerning section GPE ) of LAW to LAW ( Einführungsgesetz in ORG ) , FRG law alone was applicable in the applicant ’s case , since the deceased ( Erblasser ) had not been resident in the territory of the former GPE on DATE , when NORP reunification had taken effect .

However , it considered that the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act was not in conformity with LAW , for the following reasons . Firstly , the legal and social status of children born outside marriage had evolved considerably since ORG decision of DATE and had in practice become equivalent to that of children born within marriage . ORG , moreover , had itself adopted a more restrictive approach to LAW ( principle of equal treatment between children born outside and within marriage ) in its decision of DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Furthermore , a new situation had arisen as a result of the accession of the former GPE to the ORG , since by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW to LAW , taken together with section GPE ) , children born outside marriage before DATE had the same rights as children born within marriage if the father had been resident in the territory of the former GPE on DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” , paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . However , there were no objective grounds for a difference of treatment between children born outside marriage before or after DATE , or between children born outside marriage before DATE according to whether or not the father had been resident in the territory of the former GPE on DATE . ORG concluded that the arguments put forward by ORG in its decision of DATE were no longer valid , particularly with regard to the practical and procedural difficulties of establishing the paternity of children born outside marriage before DATE , and the need to protect the “ legitimate expectations ” of the deceased ( ORG ) and his family .

NORP In a decision of DATE the ORG confirmed its previous decision on the basis of the same arguments . Even if it was established to PERCENT degree of certainty that the applicant was indeed Mr PERSON ’s daughter and there were no other known heirs , she was excluded from any statutory entitlement to the estate by the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act . In ORG view , that provision did not contravene LAW despite NORP reunification , as ORG had held in its decision of DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below , paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In a decision of DATE ORG again quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to it to establish whether there were any other heirs of the second or third order and to re - examine whether the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act was compatible with LAW where the ORG was the sole statutory heir .

ORG held that it was not acceptable to set a cut - off date if the deceased had no other heirs and , as a result , the ORG became the sole statutory heir . It referred in that connection to the right of inheritance ( Erbrechtsgarantie ) guaranteed in LAW , which in its view also protected the rights of a child born outside marriage where there were no private statutory heirs other than the ORG .

In a decision of DATE the ORG confirmed its previous decisions on the basis of the same arguments . It added that it was not required in the case before it to examine whether the provision in issue was in conformity with LAW , since it had been established that the deceased had heirs of the third order and that the ORG was therefore not the statutory heir .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant , on the ground that it was bound by the decisions of ORG in which the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act had been found to be in conformity with LAW . It further refused to refer the case back to ORG for a fresh examination , seeing that the ORG was not the statutory heir in the case before it .

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

It observed , in particular , that the aspect of protecting the “ legitimate expectation ” of the deceased had gained in importance since , following its decision of DATE , it had considered the inheritance rights of children born outside marriage before DATE to have been clarified in relation to LAW . It added that the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act had not lost its objective justification simply because children born outside marriage in an entirely different social context had the same rights as children born within marriage . The difference in treatment in comparison with children born outside marriage who were covered by the law of the former GPE was justified by the inherent purpose of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , that of avoiding any disadvantage resulting from the former GPE ’s accession to the ORG .

The Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act of DATE , which came into force on DATE , provided that on the father ’s death , children born outside marriage after DATE shortly after the entry into force of LAW were entitled to compensation from the heirs in an amount equivalent to their share of the estate ( Erbersatzanspruch ) . The sole exception concerned children born outside marriage before DATE : the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the LAW excluded them from any statutory entitlement to the estate and from the right to financial compensation .

In DATE , in the general context of the reform of family law with regard to custody and parental rights , the legislature also made changes to the law of succession for children born outside marriage through LAW of DATE , which came into force on DATE . Children born outside marriage are in principle now treated as equal to those born within marriage as regards all aspects of the law of succession .

However , the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act of DATE remains in force as a transitional provision .

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , taken together with section GPE ) , of LAW to the FRG Civil Code , children born outside marriage in the territory of the former GPE before DATE ( the date on which NORP reunification took effect ) have the same inheritance rights as children born within marriage in accordance with the FRG Civil Code if the father died after DATE and had been resident in the territory of the former GPE on DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) seeks to protect the rights of children born outside marriage prior to reunification who would have been covered by the law of the former GPE , which afforded equal inheritance rights to children born outside and within marriage .

It follows that the inheritance rights of children born outside marriage before DATE are dependent on the deceased ’s place of residence on DATE : if the deceased was resident in the territory of the former GPE , the child born outside marriage has the same inheritance rights as a child born within marriage ; if , however , the deceased was resident in the territory of the ORG , the child born outside marriage has no statutory entitlement to the estate .

In a leading decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the provision in issue was compatible with LAW .

It stated , in particular , that fixing DATE as the cut - off date was objectively justified in view of the practical and procedural difficulties of establishing the paternity of children born outside marriage before that date , since the scientific methods used at the time were less developed than present - day methods . Many paternity suits were therefore unlikely to succeed owing to insufficient evidence . Moreover , the new legislation made it possible to contest declarations of paternity drawn up before DATE . Accordingly , having regard to those factors , the legislature had not overstepped its margin of discretion in this regard . Furthermore , it had to a certain extent been able to take account of existing uncertainties regarding the law of succession and of the opinion of those opposed to reforming the legal status of children born outside marriage . Lastly , the “ legitimate expectation ” of the deceased and their families that the exception provided for in the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act would be maintained also deserved a certain degree of protection .

In a decision of DATE ORG confirmed its earlier position notwithstanding the reunification of GPE . It held that the legislature had taken into account the social conditions prevailing when the Children Born outside ORG had been enacted . This objective justification was still present even though children born outside marriage in an entirely different social context had the same rights as children born within marriage .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that section DATE of LAW , which provided that a child born outside marriage was entitled to a share in the estate only if at the time of the father ’s death his paternity of the child had been acknowledged or determined by a court ruling , or judicial proceedings to that effect were pending , was not in conformity with LAW .

During the passage of LAW Kinderrechteverbesserungsgesetz ) of DATE , the legislature again upheld the exception in the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act . It took the view that that provision was compatible with LAW in the light of ORG decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , which had created an even stronger “ legitimate expectation ” ( PERSON ) for the deceased and his family .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

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

On DATE the applicant was injured in a car accident . The perpetrator of the accident , ORG , had taken out insurance with the insurance company A.

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ORG and the insurance company A. in ORG , seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT ) ( MONEY ) ( ORG ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged several written submissions and adduced evidence .

DATE and DATE the court held QUANTITY hearings , CARDINAL of which was conducted at the site of the accident . It does not appear that any of the hearings were adjourned due to the applicant ’s fault .

During the proceedings , the court also appointed CARDINAL experts and requested an additional opinion from CARDINAL of them .

After the last hearing in the case , the court delivered an interim judgment ( vmesna sodba ) determining the responsibility for the damage , which was served on the applicant on DATE .

NORP On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . PERSON and the insurance company A also appealed .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part and changed the first - instance court ’s interim judgment . It found PERSON and the insurance company A responsible for PERCENT of the damage suffered due to the accident .

The judgment was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the insurance company A lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . These proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with ORG . In this supervisory appeal the applicant explained that the proceedings had started on DATE and were still pending . As a consequence , his right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated . He requested that the proceedings be expedited and the decision be delivered immediately .

On DATE , referring to sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the LAW on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) , the President of ORG replied to the supervisory appeal by explaining that the case file had been transferred to ORG on DATE .

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Hearing without Undue Delay ( Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , ORG no . CARDINAL “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) was passed by ORG on DATE and became operational on DATE .

LAW provides for remedies to expedite pending proceedings ( a supervisory appeal and a motion for a deadline ) . In addition to these acceleratory remedies , LAW also provides the possibility to obtain redress through a compensatory remedy , namely by bringing a claim for just satisfaction .

As regards the acceleratory remedies , a claimant may , during the first- and second - instance proceedings , that is the proceedings before the regular courts , use a supervisory appeal if he or she considers that the court is unduly protracting the decision - making . If the president of the court dismisses the supervisory appeal or , inter alia , fails to respond to the claimant within DATE , he or she can lodge a motion for a deadline with the court hearing the case . The motion for a deadline is dealt with by the president of the higher court . He or she shall decide on the motion for a deadline within DATE of receiving it .

As regards the present case , the following provisions of LAW are relevant :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal is manifestly unfounded having regard to the timetable for resolving the case concerned by the supervisory appeal , the president of the court shall dismiss the appeal by a ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal does not contain all the requisite elements referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW , the president of the court shall dismiss it by a ruling . No appeal shall lie against that ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If no ruling as provided for in DATE or CARDINAL of this section is given , the president of the court shall , as part of his judicial management powers under LAW , immediately request the .... judge or president of a court panel ( ‘ the judge’ ) to whom the case has been assigned for resolution to submit a report indicating the reasons for the duration of the proceedings not DATE after receiving the request of the president of the court or after obtaining the file , if necessary for drawing up the report . The report shall include a declaration in respect of the criteria referred to in DATE of this LAW and an opinion on the time - limit within which the case may be resolved . The president of the court may also require the judge to submit the case file if he considers that , in the light of the allegations of the party indicated in the supervisory appeal , its examination is necessary .

( CARDINAL ) If the judge notifies the president of the court in writing that all relevant procedural measures will be performed or a decision issued within a time - limit not exceeding DATE following the receipt of the supervisory appeal , the president of the court shall inform the party thereof and thus conclude the consideration of the supervisory appeal .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that in view of the criteria referred to in LAW CARDINAL of this Act the court is not unduly protracting the decision - making in the case , he shall dismiss the supervisory appeal by a ruling .

frame for their performance , which shall be no less than fifteen days and no longer than DATE , and the appropriate deadline for the judge to report on the measures performed .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that the undue delay in decision - making in the case is attributable to an excessive workload or an extended absence of the judge , he may order that the case be reassigned . He may also propose that an additional judge be assigned to the court or order other measures in accordance with LAW .

“ ( CARDINAL ) If , under section CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW , the president of the court dismisses the supervisory appeal or fails to respond to the party within DATE or fails to send the notification referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW within the said time - limit or if appropriate procedural acts have not been performed within the time - limit set in the notification or ruling of the president of the court , the party may lodge a motion for a deadline on the grounds stated in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW with the court hearing the case .

( CARDINAL ) The party may lodge an motion for a deadline within DATE of receiving the ruling or after expiry of the time - limits provided for in paragraph QUANTITY of this section . ”

As to the claim for just satisfaction , sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the CARDINAL Act provide that for the party to be able to lodge a claim for just satisfaction CARDINAL cumulative conditions must be satisfied . Firstly , during the first- and/or second - instance proceedings the applicant must have successfully availed himself of a supervisory appeal or have lodged a motion for a deadline , regardless of its outcome . In this connection section CARDINAL provides , in so far as relevant :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal lodged by the party has been upheld or a motion for a deadline has been lodged , the party may claim just satisfaction under LAW .

Secondly , the proceedings must have been “ finally resolved ” ( pravnomočno končan postopek ) . The final resolution of the case refers in principle to the final decision against which no ordinary appeal lies . This would normally be the first , or if an appeal has been lodged , the second - instance court ’s decision .

As regards proceedings before ORG , a claimant can use a supervisory appeal and a motion for a deadline with an aim to accelerate the proceedings . It would appear from the text of the CARDINAL Act that both are dealt with by the president of ORG . A claim for just satisfaction is not available in respect of the length of ORG proceedings . The relevant part of LAW reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If a party considers that the court is unduly protracting the decision - making , he or she may lodge a supervisory appeal in writing before the court hearing the case ; the decision thereon is taken by the .... president of the court ( ‘ the president of the ORG ) .

( CARDINAL ) The president of ORG shall have the competence to decide on the motion for a deadline concerning cases heard by ORG .

( CARDINAL ) Other judges may be assigned by the DATE schedule of allocation to act in place of or together with the presidents of courts referred to in previous paragraphs for decision - making on motions for a deadline . ”

For a more detailed presentation of LAW , see GPE v. GPE , ( dec . ) no . CARDINAL , DATE .

As regards possible outcome of ORG proceedings , LAW ( Zakon o pravdnem postopku , ORG no . CARDINAL , in force since DATE ) provides that , depending on the circumstances , ORG when upholding an appeal on points of law may remit the case for re - examination or vary the lower court ’s judgment .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

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

As submitted by the applicant and established by the domestic courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , in TIME DATE the applicant attended at ORG , at the investigator ’s summons , as a witness in a fraud - related criminal investigation . At TIME , officer PERSON questioned him . Not being satisfied by the applicant ’s explanations and seeking to obtain his confession to the fraud , PERSON tied the applicant ’s hands behind his back with a belt , made him sit on a chair and punched him CARDINAL or CARDINAL times in the head . PERSON took the applicant into the corridor , threw him face down against the floor and raised his tied arms behind his back CARDINAL times . PERSON also kicked the applicant several times in the ribs .

According to PERSON ’s report to the police unit on duty , later found to be knowingly false ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he had apprehended the applicant in the street for swearing in public . As a result , an administrative offence report was drawn up and the applicant was arrested . According to the police records , he was released at TIME on DATE . As it was later established , the applicant was in fact held in the room for detainees until TIME on DATE .

In addition to the aforementioned account established by the court , the applicant alleged that CARDINAL other police officers , under the leadership of PERSON , had also beaten him .

According to the medical documentation , the applicant had been in good health before the aforementioned events of DATE .

On DATE he was examined by a doctor who documented the following injuries : multiple bruises on the face , scalp , left ear , neck and chest , as well as a closed head injury with concussion of the left frontal lobe and an intracerebral haematoma . The doctor concluded that these injuries had been caused by blunt objects and could have dated from CARDINAL or DATE .

On DATE , DATE , the applicant was admitted to a neurological hospital , where he underwent treatment until DATE .

The head injury sustained by the applicant in DATE had negative consequences for his health . As a result , he was hospitalised many times during DATE to follow . In particular , he underwent in - patient treatment on that account during the following periods : from DATE to CARDINAL February CARDINAL , from DATE , from DATE to DATE , from CARDINAL to DATE , from CARDINAL to DATE , and during subsequent unspecified periods .

In DATE the applicant was recognised as falling into the third category of disability ( the mildest ) on account of the residual effects of the head injury and post - traumatic encephalopathy .

DATE his condition was classified as a disability of the second category ( more serious ) , as the post - traumatic encephalopathy had worsened .

From DATE CARDINAL forensic medical expert examinations were carried out with a view to verifying the applicant ’s ill - treatment allegation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the examination reports the applicant had sustained a craniocerebral injury with subarachnoid haemorrhage , brain concussion , and numerous haematomas on various parts of the head , neck , back and chest . All the examinations found the applicant ’s account as to the time and origin of his injuries to be plausible . While originally the injuries were classified as grievous , the experts later reclassified them as being of medium severity . Their consequences were described as follows : lasting health deterioration , namely , a cerebral cicatrix , liquor hypertension syndrome , right - side sensory and motor impairment , and a convulsive disorder , which all together had led to the loss by the applicant of MONEY of his general working capacity and MONEY of his professional working capacity . The last forensic medical examination , which was conducted DATE and DATE , established that the applicant ’s disability was a direct result of the injuries sustained by him in DATE .

From DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints with prosecution authorities concerning unlawful detention and torture by the police .

During DATE the prosecutors refused on CARDINAL occasions to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers , having discerned no indication of a crime in their actions . All these decisions were subsequently quashed by higher - level prosecution authorities as premature , unlawful and based on a perfunctory investigation not aimed at establishing the truth .

Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG opened a criminal investigation in respect of infliction of grievous bodily injuries on the applicant by unknown persons . Subsequently , on DATE , the charge was re - classified as “ infliction of injuries of medium severity ” . The investigation was stayed several times for failure to identify the offenders .

On DATE the ORG ( hereafter – “ the PERSON Prosecutor ” ) applied to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for discontinuation of the proceedings regarding the infliction of bodily injuries of medium severity on the applicant by unknown persons as being time - barred .

On DATE ORG rejected that application as unfounded and premature . It noted that the investigation had failed to comply on many occasions with the instructions of ORG and ORG .

On DATE the Ordzhonikidzhe Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against ORG under LAW on suspicion of abuse of power , associated with violence and degrading treatment . That investigation established the facts as they are summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above .

On DATE PERSON was formally charged , and the applicant was assigned victim status .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim within the criminal proceedings seeking compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage .

On DATE the Ordzhonikidzhe Prosecutor refused to open a criminal case against the other QUANTITY police officers in respect of the applicant ’s ill - treatment , having discerned nothing criminal in their actions .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG ( “ the PERSON Court ” ) for trial .

The court adjourned its hearings several times because PERSON was receiving medical treatment for excessive hypertension , proctologic problems , and an accidental fall .

On DATE ORG upheld the investigation ’s findings and found PERSON guilty as charged . It held that PERSON had breached the applicant ’s rights under LAW and QUANTITY of the LAW , as well as LAW . The court , however , released PERSON from criminal liability as the statutory limitation period of DATE had expired .

On DATE ORG modified the abovementioned ruling in order to specify that PERSON was released from both criminal liability and punishment . It also decided to leave the applicant ’s civil claim without examination .

Both PERSON and the public prosecutor appealed . PERSON submitted that the criminal proceedings against him should be terminated for lack of evidence of his guilt . The public prosecutor emphasised that PERSON had committed a serious premeditated crime in the course of his professional activities , thus undermining the authority of the law - enforcement bodies and the ORG . He noted that PERSON had never admitted his guilt , had not drawn any conclusions , had not compensated the applicant for any pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage , and showed no remorse about what he had done . The public prosecutor therefore considered that a guilty verdict would be the right outcome to this case .

On DATE ORG rejected both appeals .

At the time of the events of DATE PERSON held the post of detective officer ( « оперуповноважений » ) in ORG .

On DATE he was promoted to the post of senior detective officer ( « старший оперуповноважений » ) .

At a later unspecified date PERSON was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief of ORG .

On DATE , after the formal charges were brought against PERSON , ORG suspended him from his duties .

On DATE ORG issued , in addition to the aforementioned judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a special ruling by which it informed ORG of the termination of the proceedings against PERSON as being time - barred and indicated that he should be restored to his post within the law - enforcement authorities .

K. apparently continues to work in the police force .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE are cited in GPE and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , LAW , DATE .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( DATE ) provided for DATE imprisonment with a prohibition on holding certain office or carrying out certain activities for a period of DATE as punishment for abuse of power , associated with violence or degrading treatment of the victim .

Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code in DATE , its LAW provided for the same punishment for this offence , except that the bar from office was limited to DATE .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law of GPE “ On the Procedure for ORG caused to ORG by ORG in charge of ORG , ORG , Prosecutors or Courts ” ( “ the LAW ” ) ” ( as worded before the amendments of DATE ) can be found in the following judgments respectively : GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

Following the amendments to LAW of DATE , the list of cases where the right to compensation would arise was expanded by inclusion of the following point :

“ ( DATE ) where ... unlawfulness of remand and holding in custody ... has been established by a conviction or other judgment of a court ( save for rulings on remittal of cases for additional investigation ) ” .

The relevant extracts from the ORG to ORG on the visit to GPE carried out by the ORG from DATE [ ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ] read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... the frequency and consistency of the allegations received by the ORG ’s delegation during the DATE visit suggest that methods of severe ill - treatment / torture continue to be used with impunity by ORG officers . It is clear that continued determined action , bringing together in a joint effort all relevant ORG agencies , is needed to combat this phenomenon . ...

... The ORG recommends that a firm message of “ CARDINAL tolerance ” of ill - treatment continue to be delivered at regular intervals to all ORG staff . It should be made clear that the perpetrators of ill - treatment and those condoning or encouraging such acts will be subject to severe sanctions . ”

Guidelines of ORG on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations , which were adopted on DATE , provide for the following among the general measures for the prevention of impunity :

“ ... CARDINAL . States should ... establish mechanisms to ensure the integrity and accountability of their agents . States should remove from office individuals who have been found , by a competent authority , to be responsible for serious human rights violations or for furthering or tolerating impunity , or adopt other appropriate disciplinary measures . ... ”


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 14+P1-1;Violation of Art. 11;Violation of Art. 14+11;Not necessary to examine Art. 9;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

Until the French Revolution of CARDINAL the right to hunt was a privilege of the nobility . Only nobles could take game , which was regarded as the lord ’s property .

During the Revolution there were CARDINAL schools of thought on the question . The first approach , supported by PERSON , was to make the right to hunt the prerogative of the landowner alone ; the second , which was advocated by PERSON , was to give all citizens unconditional freedom to hunt everywhere . The first approach carried DATE , as in TIME DATE the privilege of hunting was abolished “ subject to the sole reservation that landowners alone may hunt ” and a decree of CARDINAL DATE laid down the principle that “ Every landowner has the right to destroy or cause to be destroyed , on his property only , any species of game ” .

Subsequently the LAW DATE , a large part of which is still in force , regulated the right to hunt by introducing hunting licences and laying down fixed hunting seasons . LAW , which was later codified as LAW and then LAW , provided : “ No one shall have the right to hunt on land belonging to another without the consent of the owner or any person entitled through or under the owner . ”

However , it was made clear by case - law that this consent could be tacit and that it was possible to hunt on another ’s land provided that the owner of the hunting rights had not expressly manifested his opposition by means of measures such as signing a lease , swearing in a gamekeeper or putting up “ private hunting ” notices .

NORP Although , in an attempt to organise hunting , associations of hunters were set up spontaneously in the regions north of the LOC where large estates of agricultural land or woodland predominated , the theory of tacit consent derived from case - law led throughout the south of GPE , where sub - division of landholdings has created a pattern of much smaller properties , to an almost unlimited freedom to hunt , known as “ chasse banale ” ( public hunting ) . With the exception of a few private hunting grounds , hunters could thus hunt wherever they pleased and no one was responsible for the proper management of game stocks ; as a result game species in certain regions were decimated .

It was in those circumstances that PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , known as the “ PERSON ” , was enacted ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) . This provided for the creation of approved municipal hunters’ associations ( Associations communales de chasse agréées – “ ACCAs ” ) and approved inter - municipality hunters’ associations ( Associations inter - communales de chasse agréées – “ AICAs ” ) . Section CARDINAL ( which subsequently became Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) states that their object is “ to encourage , on their hunting grounds , an increase in game stocks , the destruction of vermin and the prevention of poaching , to instruct their members in how to hunt without interfering with property rights or crops and in general to improve the technical organisation of hunting so that the sport can be practised in a more satisfactory manner ” . To that end , the law requires the owners of landholdings smaller in area than a certain threshold , which varies from CARDINAL département to another , to become members of any ORG set up in their municipality and to transfer to it the hunting rights over their land in order to create municipal hunting grounds .

The PERSON applies in départements of metropolitan GPE other than ORG , ORG and GPE , where there is a special regime inherited from NORP law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The creation of an ORG is compulsory in départements on a list drawn up by the Minister responsible for hunting , which designates CARDINAL of the CARDINAL metropolitan départements concerned , including ORG , where Mr PERSON , Mr A. Galland , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON live ( see paragraph DATE below ) and PERSON , where PERSON lives ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the municipalities of the remainder of these CARDINAL départements ACCAs may be set up by the prefect on an application by anyone who can furnish evidence that PERCENT of landowners holding PERCENT of the land in the municipality agree . On DATE were thus set up in CARDINAL municipalities in CARDINAL different départements , including CARDINAL of the CARDINAL municipalities in GPE , where PERSON , PERSON and PERSON live ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The right to hunt belongs to the owner on his land ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but the creation of an ORG results in the pooling of hunting grounds within the municipality , so that the members of the association can hunt throughout the area thus formed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Under certain conditions the owners of landholdings attaining in a single block a specified minimum area ( CARDINAL hectares in GPE and QUANTITY in GPE and GPE ) may object to inclusion of their land in the ORG ’s hunting grounds or request its removal from them ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were born in DATE and DATE respectively . All CARDINAL are farmers and live in the département of GPE , PERSON at ORG and the other CARDINAL at ORG .

They own landholdings there smaller than QUANTITY in a single block which are included in the hunting grounds of the ACCAs of ORG and ORG .

In DATE , as members of ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) , and later of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , an approved association of recognised public usefulness with regard to the protection of nature , the applicants placed notices at the boundaries of their property bearing the words “ Hunting prohibited ” and “ Sanctuary ” . The ACCAs of ORG and Chourgnac - d’Ans then applied for an injunction requiring the removal of these notices . The judge competent to hear urgent applications granted the injunction sought by a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was upheld on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the prefect of GPE rejected an application from PERSON , PERSON and PERSON for the removal of their land from the hunting grounds of the ORG and ORG .

They then applied for judicial review of that decision to ORG , which found against them in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicants had brought civil proceedings against the ACCAs of ORG and ORG in the ORG tribunal de grande instance .

Essentially , they argued that sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Loi Verdeille were incompatible with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL , firstly in that they provided that all unenclosed plots of land smaller than QUANTITY hectares in area and situated QUANTITY from any dwelling were to be included in an ORG ’s hunting grounds by means of the transfer of hunting rights to the association from the landowners or holders of the rights , such transfer being deemed to have been effected automatically and without valuable consideration even without the latter ’s consent , and secondly in that a non - hunting landowner automatically became a member of the association . They asked the court to rule on that account that they were third parties in relation to the ACCAs concerned , that their land could no longer be included in the PERSON hunting grounds and that the ACCAs could not rely on the transfer of their hunting rights . Lastly , they asked the court to declare that they had the right to put up on their property notices enjoining respect for their rights .

On DATE the ORG tribunal de grande instance gave judgment in the following terms :

“ [ As regards the argument concerning LAW No . CARDINAL : ]

Admittedly , the PERSON entails enforced deprivation of the right to hunt , which is one of the elements of the right of property , and obliges the owners of land subject to the PERSON control to accept the presence on the land of third parties , namely hunters .

Moreover , the PERSON appears to lay down special rules derogating from the principle laid down in LAW that ‘ No one shall have the right to hunt on land belonging to another without the owner ’s consent ... ’ .

[ Protocol No . CARDINAL ] does not exclude restrictions on the right of property ... since LAW , after stating the principle ‘ No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law’ , goes on to say : ‘ The preceding provisions shall not , however , in any way impair the right of a ORG to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.’

Most of the terms employed reflect the very broad nature of the restrictions which may be imposed on the right of property by signatory GPE in their domestic legislation .

The Loi Verdeille , whose stated aim ... is to encourage , inter alia , an increase in game stocks , the destruction of vermin and the prevention of poaching , satisfies the ‘ general interest’ criterion laid down in LAW No . CARDINAL ] . Similarly , in attempting to ‘ improve the technical organisation of ORG intended to permit democratic participation in hunting and to prevent landowners from reserving exclusive hunting rights over their land , thus restricting the right to use property , meaning in this case the right to hunt , in accordance with the ‘ general interest’ referred to in [ Protocol No . CARDINAL ] .

Consequently , with regard to the right of property , the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the [ PERSON ] do not appear to be contrary to the Convention ...

[ As regards the arguments concerning LAW , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention : ]

By providing that owners of landholdings of QUANTITY in area shall ipso facto be members of an ORG , section CARDINAL of the Loi Verdeille imposes what amounts to compulsory membership of an association whose aims , as in the present case , are not , for reasons of personal ethics , shared by the members , and indeed are vehemently opposed by them .

Freedom of association must necessarily be interpreted as the ‘ positive freedom’ for each individual to join an association of his or her choice , but it also means the negative right not to be compelled to join an association or trade union . To accept that LAW of [ the LAW ] guarantees only the ‘ NORP freedom of association would mean denying the very principle of that freedom , which is based on the free , voluntary choice of any person who wishes to join a group .

Accordingly , by compelling certain landowners to join an ORG , sections CARDINAL of the Loi Verdeille violate the very substance of freedom of association , which must be regarded as CARDINAL aspect of the freedom of conscience , opinion and expression which is likewise guaranteed by [ the Convention ] , and lead not to a restriction of the freedom of association but to the negation of it .

This infringement of the freedom of association appears all the more shocking because the right to object to the transfer of hunting rights is reserved by LAW [ FAC ] exclusively to the owners of properties exceeding QUANTITY in area in a single block .

Thus the PERSON establishes discrimination between landowners on the basis of the amount of land they own , which is wholly incompatible with LAW ] , whereas the right not to join an ORG should be uniformly granted to all landowners , whatever the size of their holdings .

Nevertheless , it must be determined whether the interference with exercise of the freedom of association resulting from sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Loi Verdeille can be justified under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of [ the LAW ] .

As it is necessarily out of the question to regard the Loi Verdeille as ‘ necessary in a democratic society’ in the interests of national security or public safety , for the prevention of disorder or crime , or for the protection of health or morals , it can be considered compatible with [ the Convention ] only if it is accepted that the interference with exercise of the freedom of association is justified ‘ for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’ , the only restriction in the present case provided for by the above - mentioned LAW .

It must therefore be determined whether the Loi Verdeille governing the organisation of ACCAs , whose object is ‘ in DATE or mainly , in the GPE submission – ‘ to improve the technical organisation of hunting so that the sport can be practised in a more satisfactory manner’ , can prevail over the right not to join a hunters’ association .

It must be noted in the first place that FAC does not appear to be absolutely necessary , given that it is applied in full in only CARDINAL NORP départements out of CARDINAL , that it affects only CARDINAL municipalities in GPE , including CARDINAL in GPE and that it is not the only legislation concerning the protection of game and compensation for damage caused by it .

Secondly , the right to hunt is not considered one of the rights protected by [ the Convention ] ( see , to that effect , PERSON . PERSON . PERSON . DATE , page CARDINAL) .

Consequently , mere protection of the exercise of a sport can not prevail over the fundamental freedom to join or not to join an association . By compelling landowners to become members of ACCAs despite the ethical stance and personal conscience of those members , as in the present case , the Loi Verdeille inflicts on the persons concerned wrongs that are disproportionate to the aim pursued , namely the self - seeking pursuit of a leisure activity and the organisation of that activity .

ORG therefore finds that sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the [ PERSON ] do not comply with the binding provisions of LAW , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of [ the Convention ] .

Consequently , the plaintiffs are now entitled to resign their membership of the ACCAs concerned and put up notices on their property bearing the text of their choice , in so far as this is consistent with public - order considerations and accepted moral standards . ”

On DATE the ORG and ORG appealed to ORG .

On DATE that court set aside all the provisions of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , giving the following reasons :

“ It is certain that in seeking to promote the rational exercise of the right to hunt through the pooling of individual rights over properties smaller than the minimum areas laid down in regulations the [ PERSON ] derogates to a considerable extent from the principle laid down by the provisions of LAW that ‘ No one shall have the right to hunt on land belonging to another without the consent of the owner or any person entitled through or under the owner’ . By that means , however , the right to hunt , which is CARDINAL element of the right of property , has been detached therefrom in order to ensure that it is exercised in accordance with the general interest , as defined in section CARDINAL , which provides that the object of [ ACCAs ] , thus vested with public - authority prerogatives , shall be ‘ to encourage , on their hunting grounds , an increase in game stocks , the destruction of vermin and the prevention of poaching , to instruct their members in how to hunt without interfering with property rights or crops and in general to improve the technical organisation of hunting so that the sport can be practised in a more satisfactory manner’ .

In asserting that ORG only took into consideration ‘ the self - seeking pursuit of a leisure activity’ , and that this did not justify depriving some people of their fundamental rights , the court below evidently disregarded the object of the provisions referred to above , which concern both protection of the environment and wildlife against unregulated hunting , damage of all kinds or anarchic management and the organisation and regulation of the sport itself . Hunting , on account of the very large number of people who take part in it and its corresponding economic importance , must be subject , like any other popular leisure activity , to the constraints inherent in the normal operation of a public service which has in addition been recognised as such by ORG and the ORG d’Etat ( CE CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL – CE CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . As such public - interest restrictions on exercise of the right of property are expressly provided for by [ the Convention ] in LAW No . CARDINAL , the respondents ORG GPE and ORG may not validly plead a breach of that provision . Similarly , the pooling of small properties to form hunting grounds of sufficient size , which are accordingly capable of affording as many people as possible access to leisure activities which would otherwise inevitably remain the prerogative of landowners fortunate enough to possess a large estate , deprives of all foundation the complaint that the [ PERSON ] discriminates on the ground of property , in breach of LAW ] .

Lastly , while transfer of rights over their land to an ORG gives the landowners concerned the status of automatic members , who are thus empowered to participate in the management of the municipal hunting grounds and to defend their interests , these are the only effects of the provisions in issue . Unlike persons whose membership is conditional , inter alia , on the payment of subscriptions , automatic members are under no obligation . Still less is there any provision for coercive measures or penalties against them ; they are free to hunt or not to hunt , to scrutinise the way the ORG conducts its business and participate in its work or refrain from any involvement in it .

Whereas , moreover , the creation of ACCAs , and their scope , modus operandi and constitution are not only governed by legislation but also subject to prefectoral approval , and whereas on that account , and notwithstanding the associative form of these bodies , their public - interest role excludes any contractual relationship between their members , the automatic admission , free of charge , of landowners required to transfer their rights is only consideration for the partial alienation that they suffer , and constitutes in addition an undoubted attenuation of the measures restricting the right of property .

It would appear that the members of the GPE , who are well aware that the general interest imposes certain restrictions on exercise of the right of property and that the [ FAC ] does not in any way erect obstacles to freedom of association , are in fact claiming a right not to hunt , which is neither secured by domestic law nor guaranteed , any more than the right to hunt itself , by international treaties .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants , giving the following reasons :

“ The provisions of LAW No . CARDINAL ... recognise the right of a ORG to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest , and ORG held , firstly , that the provisions of the [ FAC ] had to do with protection of the environment and wildlife from unregulated hunting and damage of all kinds or anarchic management as much as with the organisation and regulation of hunting itself , and secondly that the pooling of small landholdings into hunting grounds of sufficient size , which would accordingly be able to afford as many people as possible access to leisure activities that would otherwise be bound to remain the prerogative of large landowners , deprived of all foundation the complaint of discrimination based on property . The argument on that point is therefore unfounded .

Having noted that landowners who had transferred their rights to the association , who were automatic members , were under no obligation , that there was no provision for coercive measures or penalties against them , that these members could participate in the work of the association or refrain from doing so and that , as the public - service role of the association excluded any contractual relationship between its members , the automatic admission , free of charge , of landowners required by law to transfer their rights was only consideration for that transfer , ORG , through those reasons alone provided the reasoning required by law for its decision on that subject . ”

Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( who died in DATE ) were born in DATE and DATE respectively ; Mr M. Petit and Mr Pinon were born in DATE . They are all farmers living at GPE in the département of ORG . They own landholdings there smaller than QUANTITY in a single block which are included in the hunting grounds of the ACCAs of PERSON and GPE and describe themselves as opposed to hunting on ethical grounds . They too are members of the ORG .

In DATE and DATE each of the applicants requested the prefect of ORG to remove their land from the hunting grounds of the ACCAs in question . They then applied to ORG for judicial review of the implicit refusals constituted by the prefect ’s failure to reply , relying on the provisions of the LAW and those of LAW and LAW of DATE on freedom of association .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals in CARDINAL identical judgments , giving the following reasons :

“ As regards the complaint of an interference with the freedom of conscience

No provision of LAW DATE ... infringes the right of persons opposed to hunting to express that belief or to manifest it , even in public . The mere fact that an ORG has been set up does not impose on them in that respect any constraint , obligation or prohibition ... The freedom of opinion and expression of persons opposed to hunting is necessarily limited by protection of the rights and freedoms of hunters and those who share their convictions .

As regards the complaint of an interference with the freedom of association

Under such provisions citizens can not be obliged to join an association against their will . However , since , under the very terms of the provisions relied on , freedom of association may be subject to restrictions which are deemed necessary on general - interest grounds , a citizen may be legally required to join an association whose object is to serve the general interest . Rational exercise of the right to hunt , as organised by LAW DATE is a general - interest ground , notwithstanding the fact that , regard being had to the manner of its implementation , the PERSON is not in practice applied to the whole of the national territory . The interference thus imposed on individual freedom of association is not excessive in the light of this general interest .

As regards the complaint of a breach of equality before the law

In any event , the provisions of the LAW ... do not introduce discrimination on the ground of property . Although it lays down a minimum qualifying area for objections and withdrawals , the PERSON ’s wording and its drafting history show that these limits were laid down in order to ensure the rational organisation of hunting . Such a general interest justifies a difference in treatment between landowners depending on the area of land they possess without this different treatment constituting a breach of equality before the law .

As regards the complaint of an infringement of the right of property and the right of use

Although the provisions cited above protect the right of property and the right to use one ’s possessions , they do not prevent restrictions being imposed thereon in the general interest . As this ORG has already remarked , the organisation of hunting serves a general interest which justifies such restrictions . The landowners whose land is included in the ORG ’s hunting grounds receive consideration for the loss of their exclusive right of use in the form of their membership of the ORG and the services it provides . The fact that [ the applicants ] stated that they were not interested by such forms of consideration is not capable of rendering them insufficient . Lastly , although [ the applicants ] maintained that LAW DATE did not ensure fair and prior compensation , contrary to provisions having the status of constitutional law , it is not for the administrative courts to rule on the constitutionality of legislation . Accordingly such a complaint may not be validly raised before ORG . ”

Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL , the applicants appealed to the ORG d’Etat .

By CARDINAL identical judgments of DATE the ORG d’Etat dismissed their appeals on the following grounds :

No provision of the [ FAC ] obliges a non - hunter to take part in or approve of hunting . Consequently , and in any case , the appellant is not entitled to maintain that ORG wrongly held that the provisions of the [ FAC ] were not contrary to the provisions of LAW ] .

The [ FAC ] introduced municipal hunters’ associations approved by prefects with the aim of improving the technical organisation of hunting . With a view to enabling these bodies to perform the public - service role entrusted to them , various public - authority prerogatives were conferred on them . Consequently , and in any case , the provisions mentioned can not be validly relied on to contest the lawfulness of the impugned decision taken by the prefect of ORG .

The fact that land belonging to the appellant was included in the hunting grounds of the [ ORG ] and that owners of the hunting rights may come to hunt there has not deprived the appellant of his property but merely restricted his right to use it , in accordance with the rules laid down by the [ FAC ] , which are not disproportionate in relation to the general - interest objective pursued . The argument analysed above can not therefore be upheld .

The fact that the [ FAC ] lays down different rules , depending on whether the landholdings concerned are less than or CARDINAL hectares in area , is due to the fact that the situations are different , regard being had to the objectives pursued by that PERSON , in particular the management of game stocks . These rules do not impose any of the forms of discrimination proscribed ... by LAW ] ”

PERSON was born in DATE and works as a secretary . She lives at PERSON in the département of GPE .

The applicant and her husband , who died in DATE , were the owners of a landholding of QUANTITY which formed part of the hunting grounds of the PERSON ORG .

As a member of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and the GPE , PERSON unsuccessfully requested during the procedure to set up the ORG that his land be designated an ORG reserve . He then , with no more success , contested in the administrative courts the prefectoral decree of DATE approving the association .

Determined thenceforth to include his property in the ORG ’s network of voluntary nature reserves , he requested the prefect of PERSON , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , firstly to order the PERSON ORG to remove him from the list of its members , and secondly to remove his land from the list of properties forming the association ’s hunting grounds . On DATE he wrote to the chairman of the ORG making the same request .

The prefect and the chairman of the ORG refused in letters dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON and the ORG asked ORG to set aside the decisions of DATE and DATE as being ultra vires . They essentially pleaded violation of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected these applications on the following grounds :

“ As to the decision of DATE by the chairman of [ the ORG ] :

... [ PERSON application to the chairman of the PERSON ORG ] must be regarded as a challenge to membership of an association constituted in accordance with LAW . Although , in order to achieve the objectives laid down by the [ FAC ] , [ ACCAs ] are vested with public - authority prerogatives , they nevertheless remain private - law bodies . The decisions they take outside the context of the exercise of those prerogatives , particularly with regard to granting or withdrawing membership , are private - law acts which are not subject to review by the administrative courts . Consequently , the submissions in the application ... directed against the refusal to remove PERSON from the list of members of the PERSON ORG have been brought before a court which has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of them and must be rejected .

As to the decision of DATE by the prefect of PERSON ... :

Under the terms of LAW ]

The right to hunt or not to hunt is not CARDINAL of the rights and freedoms whose enjoyment is protected by [ the Convention ] . Consequently , PERSON and [ the ORG ] may not rely on the LAW in complaining of a breach of equality before the law . However , equality before the law is a general principle of law which the applicants may rely on .

Section CARDINAL of the [ PERSON ] reserves to the owners of land attaining an area of QUANTITY in a single block the right to object to the inclusion of the land in question in the hunting grounds of an ORG . That limit , which has not been shown to constitute discrimination on the ground of property , was laid down in order to ensure the rational organisation of hunting through the pooling of hunting grounds of sufficient size and in order thus to guarantee that as many people as possible might exercise the right to hunt . That being so , it can not be considered to impair equality before the law .

While [ the Convention ] protects the right of property , it does not stand in the way of interferences with that right in accordance with the general interest . The organisation of hunting , on account of the very nature of that activity , the number of hunters and the social phenomenon it constitutes , is a matter of general interest which justifies an interference with the right of property . A landowner whose property is included in the ORG ’s hunting grounds receives consideration for the loss of his right to private use in the form of a right to use the land of the other landowners , not to mention the other services provided by the association , of which he automatically becomes a member . Furthermore , Mr Montion is not entitled to rely on his own refusal to accept this consideration in support of his assertion that he has not been fairly compensated for the loss of his right of use .

According to LAW ]

The aim of these provisions is to protect rights and fundamental freedoms to which the right ‘ not to hunt’ does not belong . In addition , they provide that the principles they set forth may be subject to restrictions inherent in the concurrent exercise of individual rights and freedoms . Indeed , the restrictions on these rights and freedoms are thus justified , in their principle and manner of application , in the light of the competing interests at issue . The organisation of hunting is made necessary , as pointed out above , by the need to protect public order , public safety and the right of everyone to hunt .

Under the terms of LAW of [ the Convention ]

Participation in [ the ORG ] , for a landowner whose property is included in its hunting grounds , is a right granted in consideration for the loss of the exclusive right to use his land and is intended to enable him to defend his interests within the association . In addition , he has the right to resign subject to the conditions laid down in section CARDINAL of the [ FAC ] and does not have to pay a subscription , transfer of his rights not being capable of being construed as a form of subscription , since advantages are provided to set this off . Consequently , the refusal to allow PERSON to resign from the PERSON ORG did not infringe the freedom of association .

Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL , Mr Montion and the ORG appealed to the ORG d’Etat on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On DATE the ORG d’Etat dismissed the appeals by a judgment giving the same reasons as those it had given on DATE of the same year in the cases of Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Countryside Code provides :

“ The Government shall be responsible for supervising and regulating hunting in accordance with the general interest . ”

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( former LAW provides :

“ No one shall have the right to hunt on land belonging to another without the consent of the owner or any person entitled through or under the owner . ”

The “ right to hunt ” therefore belongs to the landowner . It is an exclusive right , although the law gives the lessee of an agricultural tenancy the right to hunt on the property ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The landowner may “ let ” his hunting rights but can not sell them separately from the property concerned .

Article CARDINAL of the Countryside Code provides :

“ Anyone who hunts on land belonging to another without the consent of the owner of the land or the hunting rights shall be liable to the penalties laid down for Class CARDINAL offences . ”

Under LAW , the Minister responsible for hunting must draw up a list of the species of animals which may be designated vermin pursuant to LAW . The list is drawn up after ORG has been consulted on the basis of the potential harmful effect of the animals on human activities or biological equilibrium .

Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL provides that in each département the prefect must decide which species from those on the list provided for in LAW constitute vermin in that département , having regard to the local situation and on one of the following grounds : to protect public health and safety , to prevent significant damage to agriculture , forestry or aquaculture or to protect flora and fauna .

The prefect takes the relevant decision DATE after consulting ORG for the département and ORG . It is published before DATE and comes into force on DATE of DATE .

Under Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , the landowner , person in possession or tenant farmer must either take steps to destroy vermin personally , or have such steps taken in his presence or delegate in writing the right to do so . No one delegating this right may receive payment for delegating it .

It has been established by case - law that the destruction of vermin is not hunting but an inherent part of the right of ownership or enjoyment of land ( ORG , DATE , D. CARDINAL , note by PERSON )

In certain cases the law makes the “ pooling ” of hunting grounds compulsory .

NORP In the départements of ORG , ORG and GPE exercise of the right to hunt is governed by a local law of DATE . It is supervised by the municipality on behalf of landowners . The municipality lets hunting grounds for periods of DATE by public tender . The areas of land concerned may not be smaller than QUANTITY . The rent is either distributed among the various landowners in proportion to the cadastral area of their property or , where CARDINAL of the owners , possessing CARDINAL of the rented area , so decide , assigned to the municipality .

The owner of a piece of land CARDINAL hectares in a single block ( QUANTITY for lakes and ponds ) may reserve his hunting rights , but where a qualified majority of the landowners have decided to assign the rent for hunting grounds to the municipality he must pay the municipality a contribution proportional to the size of the holding concerned . Several landowners may not pool their land to make up the statutory minimum areas . The law does not apply to plots of land enclosed by a fence preventing any communication with neighbouring land .

In the other départements the applicable rules are laid down by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , known as the “ PERSON ” , which provides for the creation of approved municipal and inter - municipality hunters’ associations ( “ ACCAs ” and “ AICAs ” ) .

ACCAs , which are subject to the ordinary law on associations ( the Law of DATE ) and the special provisions of the PERSON ( codified as Articles PERSON . of LAW ) and the regulatory provisions codified as Articles R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , pool the hunting grounds within their municipalities . Their statutory object is to “ encourage , on their hunting grounds , an increase in game stocks , the destruction of vermin and the prevention of poaching , to instruct their members in how to hunt without interfering with property rights or crops and in general to improve the technical organisation of hunting so that the sport can be practised in a more satisfactory manner ” ( Article L. CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW ) .

There may not be CARDINAL ORG in a municipality , but CARDINAL in the same département may set up an NORP ( Articles L. CARDINAL and PERSON seq . of LAW ) .

The creation of an ORG is mandatory only in certain départements named on a list drawn up by the Minister responsible for hunting , on a proposal by the prefect of the relevant département , supported by the département council , and after prior consultation of ORG and ORG in that département ( LAW of LAW ) . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL metropolitan départements other than ORG , ORG and GPE are concerned , including ORG and PERSON .

In the remainder of these CARDINAL départements the prefect draws up a list of municipalities where an ORG is to be set up . His decision is taken on an application by anyone who can furnish evidence that PERCENT of landowners holding PERCENT of the land in the municipality agree to set up an association for DATE ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) . On DATE were thus set up in CARDINAL municipalities in CARDINAL different départements , including CARDINAL of the CARDINAL municipalities in GPE .

Altogether , ACCAs have been set up in CARDINAL municipalities out of CARDINAL in metropolitan GPE .

In the municipalities concerned the prefect must organise a public inquiry to determine “ the properties in respect of which hunting rights are to be transferred to the municipal hunters’ association by the owners of such properties or such rights ” ( Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , PERSON and PERSON seq . of LAW ) .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Countryside Code provides :

“ Such transfers shall be automatically deemed to have been made for a renewable period of DATE upon a request from the municipal association provided that , within DATE from the date on which the notice of formation of the association is posted at the town hall and sent to each landowner or owner of hunting rights fulfilling the conditions laid down in Article PERSON by recorded delivery letter with a prepaid acknowledgement of receipt form , the landowner or owner of hunting rights does not inform the mayor by recorded delivery letter with a prepaid acknowledgement of receipt form that he objects to such a transfer , and on what grounds . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ A municipal hunters’ association may hunt on lands other than those :

within a radius of QUANTITY of any dwelling ;

NORP enclosed by a fence as defined in Article CARDINAL of LAW [ ‘ continuous and unbroken , forming an obstacle to any communication with neighbouring properties and incapable of being breached by game animals or by human GPE ] ;

forming an uninterrupted area greater than the minimum area referred to in Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and in relation to which the owners of the land or of the hunting rights have filed objections ; or

constituting public property belonging to the ORG , a département or a municipality or forming part of a public forest or belonging to ORG . ”

The owners of land or hunting rights DATE or groups of owners – may object , where certain conditions are satisfied , to the inclusion of their hunting grounds in those of the ORG . Article PERSON of LAW provides :

“ In order to be admissible , an objection ... by owners of land or hunting rights must relate to QUANTITY of land in a single block .

That minimum shall be lowered in respect of waterfowl shooting

to QUANTITY for undrained marshland ;

to QUANTITY for isolated ponds ;

NORP to CARDINAL ares for ponds where , on DATE , there were fixed installations , shelters or hides .

The minimum shall be lowered in respect of hunting for birds of the family ORG to QUANTITY for land where , on DATE , there were fixed structures used for that purpose .

The minimum shall be raised to QUANTITY for land in mountain areas above the tree - line .

Orders made for each département under the conditions laid down in LAW may increase the minimum areas thus defined . These increases may not bring the new figure to more than twice the minimum laid down above . ”

In départements where creation of an ORG is mandatory the minimum areas may be tripled by a ministerial order ( PERSON d’Etat , DATE , PERSON and Others , RFDA CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , DATE , p. TIME ) .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Countryside Code adds :

“ Any owner of land or hunting rights who has filed an objection shall pay all taxes and levies which may be due in relation to private hunting grounds , see to the keeping of the land , take steps to destroy vermin there and put up signs on the boundaries of the land indicating its status . If a landowner so requests , a hunters’ federation must act as warden in relation to the land . ”

Where the owner of land or of hunting rights over land of an area greater than the minimum referred to in Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW wishes to leave an ORG , he may do so only on expiry of CARDINAL of the DATE periods and on DATE notice . The ORG is then entitled to ask him to pay a sum of compensation to be determined by the relevant court and corresponding to the value of any improvements the ORG has made ( LAW ) .

Where the owner of land smaller than the minimum area mentioned above subsequently acquires further pieces of contiguous land forming with the first piece of land a single block larger than the minimum , he is entitled to ask for the property thus formed to be removed from the ORG ’s hunting grounds ( Article PERSON of LAW ) . Owners of land and/or hunting rights may not combine with each other to obtain the right to withdraw from an ORG ( ORG d’Etat , DATE , PERSON , PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) .

Articles L. CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG provide respectively :

“ The transfer of hunting rights by a landowner or owner of hunting rights shall extinguish any other hunting rights unless the parties have agreed otherwise . ”

“ Transfer entitles the landowner to be compensated by the association if he suffers any loss of profits caused by deprivation of a previous source of income .

The amount of compensation shall be fixed by the competent court , as shall the sum owed by the association to an owner of hunting rights who has made improvements to the land over which he possesses the right to hunt . ”

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL provides :

“ The constitution of each association shall provide that any person holding a valid hunting licence may join provided that he :

ORG is domiciled in the municipality or has a residence there in respect of which , for DATE in succession at the time of his admission , without interruption , he appears on the list of persons liable to pay CARDINAL of the CARDINAL forms of direct taxation ; or

ORG owns land or hunting rights and has transferred his hunting rights ; in this case , the spouse , ascendants and descendants of such person may also join ; or

holds land under an agricultural tenancy where the owner of the land has transferred his hunting rights .

The constitution shall also lay down the minimum number of members required for the association to exist and the minimum percentage of such members who may be hunters not falling within any of the above categories .

A landowner who does not hunt shall be a member of the association automatically and free of charge and shall not be liable to contribute to making up any deficit which the association may have . ”

Members of an ORG are entitled to hunt throughout the association ’s hunting grounds , in accordance with its internal rules ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

An association is approved by order of the prefect after he has verified that it has complied with the procedural requirements and that its constitution and internal rules are compatible with the statutory rules ( Articles L. CARDINAL and R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The prefect acts as a supervisory authority for the ACCAs . Any changes to the constitution , the internal rules or the hunting regulations must be submitted to him for his approval ( Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) . Article PERSON further provides that the prefect may issue an order for temporary measures , or even dissolve and replace the executive committee of an ORG if it has breached any of its obligations under ORG R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL to PERSON .

Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , codified first as LAW and then as LAW , introduced the mandatory creation of game reserves . The Minister responsible for hunting had power to draw up , on a proposal by the hunters’ federation of each département , the list of départements where municipal game reserves could be created .

On a proposal by the hunters’ federation of each département , and after prior consultation of the municipal council , the council of the département and ORG , a ministerial order could establish , for each of these départements , a list of the municipalities in which creation of a game reserve was compulsory , with an indication of the minimum areas of such reserves . Subject to the exceptions set out in the fifth sub - paragraph of LAW , hunting is prohibited inside these reserves .

The Loi Verdeille requires ACCAs and ORG to create CARDINAL or more municipal or inter - municipality game reserves . The area of these reserves must be CARDINAL of the total area of the association ’s hunting grounds . The list of the pieces of land forming the reserve , as identified in ORG records , must be approved by the prefect . They must be set up “ in parts of the hunting grounds suited to the species of game to be protected and established in such a manner as to ensure respect for property , crops and various kinds of cultivated plants ” ( Articles L. CARDINAL , PERSON and NORP CARDINAL of LAW ) .

In the new version , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , Article PERSON provides :

“ The conditions for setting up and operating game reserves shall be laid down by a decree of the PERSON d’Etat . This shall determine in particular the conditions for deciding what measures should be adopted to prevent prejudice to human activities , encourage the protection of game and its habitats and maintain biological equilibrium . ”

Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG of DATE ) introduced “ game and wildlife reserves ” and amended Articles NORP CARDINAL - CARDINAL to PERSON and PERSON of FAC .

The new Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL states that ORG reserves are subject to the provisions of ORG R. DATE to R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW .

LAW decree further states that game reserves approved by the ORG before its entry into force are now governed by ORG R. CARDINAL to R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of FAC .

Game and wildlife reserves are set up by the prefect ( Article NORP CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) either of his own motion , “ where it appears necessary to lend support to large - scale game protection and management projects carried out in the general interest ” ( Article NORP CARDINAL of LAW ) , or on an application by the owner of the hunting rights ( Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) ; if the prefect refuses , he must give reasons for his decision ( ibid . ) .

A prefect may close down a game and wildlife reserve at any time , on general - interest grounds or on an application by the owner of the hunting rights , particularly at the end of each DATE period after the reserve ’s creation . If he refuses such an application , he must give reasons for his decision ( Article R. CARDINAL of LAW ) .

All hunting is prohibited in a game and wildlife reserve . The order setting up the reserve may however provide for the possibility of implementing a hunting plan where that is necessary in order to maintain biological equilibrium and a balance between hunting , agriculture and forestry . In that case , implementation of the plan must then be authorised DATE by the order assigning the quotas ( Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) . Moreover , the capture of game species for scientific purposes or for the purpose of restocking may be authorised under the conditions laid down by ordinary law ( LAW of LAW ) . Other activities likely to disturb game or threaten its habitat may be regulated or prohibited ( Articles PERSON to PERSON ) .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Countryside Code provides :

“ Parts of the territory of CARDINAL or more municipalities may be designated as a nature reserve where conservation of flora and fauna , the soil , water , deposits of minerals or fossils and the natural environment in general is particularly important or where it is necessary to protect them from any form of artificial intervention which might damage them . Designation may affect maritime public property and NORP territorial waters . ”

The most important factors to be taken into consideration for this purpose are : preservation of animal or plant species or habitats threatened with extinction in all or part of the national territory or possessing unusual features ; re - establishment of animal or plant populations or their habitats ; conservation of botanical gardens and arboreta which form reserves for rare and unusual plants or species threatened with extinction ; preservation of biotopes and unusual geological , geomorphological or speleological formations ; and preservation or establishment of intermediate destinations on the major migration routes of wild fauna .

A designation decision is made by decree , after all the local authorities concerned have been consulted . Where the landowner ’s consent is withheld , the reserve is designated by a decree of the ORG d’Etat ( Article PERSON of LAW ) . The designation procedure , which is set in motion by the Minister responsible for the protection of nature , is laid down in Articles R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL to NORP CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG .

By DATE , CARDINAL nature reserves had been set up under this procedure .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ In order to protect species of wild flora and fauna of scientific and ecological interest occurring on private property , landowners may apply for any such property to be approved as a voluntary nature reserve by the administrative authorities , in consultation with the local authorities concerned . ”

An application for approval must be sent to the prefect by the landowner , accompanied by a file containing , inter alia , the following documents ( Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) : a letter setting out the aim and scope of the project , and the reasons for it ; a report by a qualified person demonstrating a particular scientific and ecological interest which would be served by implementing the project ; a list of acts or activities considered to endanger the preservation of the species of scientific and ecological interest and a list of the conservation measures , whether permanent or temporary , which the applicant wishes to have taken ; and details of the arrangements the landowner intends to make for surveillance of the reserve and of the facilities and improvements required to protect it .

The prefect submits the file for opinion to the municipal council or councils concerned , to the approved municipal hunters’ association DATE or , where there is none , ORG of the relevant département – if there has been a request for the prohibition or regulation of hunting inside the reserve , and to ORG of the département , sitting as a nature - protection authority ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

NORP The decision is taken by the prefect . Where necessary , the decision signifying his approval specifies the boundaries of the reserve , the nature of the conservation measures to be implemented there and the landowner ’s obligations as regards its surveillance and protection ( Article MONEY of LAW ) .

Approval is given for DATE , is renewable by tacit consent and may be revoked at DATE period if the landowner submits a request to that effect beforehand ( Article NORP CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG ) .


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

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

On DATE ORG of GPE relied on GPE and ordered a pension authority to recalculate the applicant ’s pension and to pay arrears . This judgment became binding on DATE , but was not enforced .

On DATE a bailiff attached the authority ’s accounts . The authority applied for a judicial review of the attachment order . On DATE the bailiff stayed the enforcement proceedings for DATE pending the judicial review . Later , the bailiff stayed the proceedings CARDINAL more times : on CARDINAL , DATE , and DATE , and DATE . On DATE ORG approved the attachment order , but since the authority had appealed against this decision , the enforcement was stayed pending the appeal , i.e. until DATE .

The applicant was absent from the hearing of DATE . According to the court , the applicant had asked for the hearing to be held in his absence . According to the applicant , he had never been invited .

In separate proceedings , on DATE the ORG gave its own interpretation of the Law on State Pensions .

NORP The pension authority considered that this interpretation superseded the interpretation given by ORG , and on this ground asked it to reconsider the case due to newly - discovered circumstances . On DATE ORG granted this request , rejected the applicant ’s claim against the pension authority , and terminated the enforcement proceedings .

Under LAW of DATE , a bailiff must enforce a judgment within DATE .

Under section CARDINAL of this PERSON , if there are interfering circumstances , a bailiff may on his own initiative or on the initiative of the debtor stay enforcement proceedings for a period of DATE . In this case he shall issue a decision in this regard and notify it to the parties , to the court , or any other body that has issued the writ of enforcement . This bailiff ’s decision may be appealed against in a relevant court within DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

On DATE his DATE house in GPE , GPE , was blown up by unknown perpetrators .

On DATE he instituted civil proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) seeking damages from GPE for his damaged property .

Pursuant to ORG ( LAW ( ORG o izmjeni PERSON o obveznim odnosima ) , ORG stayed the proceedings on DATE .

The proceedings resumed on DATE pursuant to the “ Damage from ORG Demonstrations Act DATE ” ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim for damages . The applicant appealed and the case is now apparently pending before ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) .

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

“ Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another ’s property , when it results from violent acts or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations , lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty , according to the laws in force , to prevent such loss . ”

The Civil Obligations ( Amendments ) Act DATE ( Zakon o izmjeni PERSON o obveznim odnosima , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) entered into force on DATE . The relevant parts of that Act read as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL of LAW ... shall be repealed . ”

“ Proceedings for damages instituted under LAW shall be stayed .

The proceedings referred to in sub - section CARDINAL of this section shall resume after the enactment of special legislation governing responsibility for damage resulting from terrorist acts . ”

NORP The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides :

“ Proceedings shall be stayed :

( CARDINAL ) where another statute so prescribes . ”

The “ Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act DATE ” ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija , ORG no . CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) entered into force on DATE . It provides that proceedings which were stayed pursuant to LAW will resume and defines circumstances in which GPE is liable for damage resulting from terrorist acts and public demonstrations .


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

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

The applicant is a former serviceman of ORG - GPE . He instituted civil proceedings against ORG to recover the remuneration for his participation in military operations .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) granted his claim . The court awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUR ) . The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force on DATE . On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .

On DATE the judgment of DATE was fully enforced .

By a decision of DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s action for compensation of inflation losses sustained as a result of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of DATE . The court acknowledged that the judgment of DATE had been enforced with a substantial delay and awarded the applicant PERSON . No appeal was lodged against the decision and it entered into force on DATE .

On DATE the applicant received the amounts awarded to him by the decision of CARDINAL DATE .