CASE OF BRUALLA GÓMEZ DE LA TORRE v. SPAIN

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time , she practised as a lawyer ( procurador ) in LOC owned by an insurance company and to the tenancy of which she considered that she had succeeded on the death of her father .

At some point in DATE the insurance company brought an action in ORG for termination of the lease , arguing that the applicant could not succeed to her father ’s rights under it . On DATE the insurance company ’s action was dismissed . It appealed .

On DATE the Madrid Audiencia provincial reversed the impugned decision , holding that the applicant could not succeed to her father ’s rights under the lease .

On DATE the applicant gave notice to the Audiencia provincial of her intention to appeal to ORG . On DATE the Audiencia provincial formally noted that notice of appeal had been given ( “ se tiene por preparado el recurso ” ) and on DATE it summoned the parties to appear before ORG to enter the appeal within DATE time - limit laid down by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In the meantime PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) , which made urgent changes to various court procedures , had come into force on DATE ( DATE after its publication in ORG ) . It amended certain provisions of LAW , in particular those governing the conditions of admissibility of appeals to ORG in proceedings concerning leases of urban property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG delivered a decision in which it construed the transitional provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . With respect to appeals of which notice had been given to the courts below before the entry into force of that PERSON but which had not been entered with ORG , it held :

“ In view of the silence of the [ transitional ] provision [ no . CARDINAL ] or its failure to deal with the question , the new procedure shall apply in full in the case referred to above , and that makes it necessary to refer to LAW of CARDINAL DATE promulgating LAW , a provision which is of general application . ”

NORP On DATE , within DATE period allowed by the Audiencia provincial ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant entered her appeal with ORG .

In its decision ( auto ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG held at the outset that , pursuant to transitional provision no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL applied to cases such as the one before it in which an appeal had not been entered until after that PERSON had come into force , even if notice of intention to lodge the appeal had been given beforehand . It went on to find that the DATE amount of rent payable under the lease in question was MONEY , which was less than the minimum amount ( MONEY ) required under the new legislation for an appeal to lie to ORG . That being so , the applicant ’s appeal had to be declared inadmissible in accordance with LAW in conjunction with CARDINAL of ORG , both as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE PERSON lodged an amparo appeal with ORG on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE , at the request of the applicant , ORG ordered a stay of execution of the FAC provincial ’s judgment .

Referring in particular to its own case - law on ORG interpretation of transitional provision no . CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG , declining to adopt the opinion of ORG , dismissed the applicant ’s amparo appeal on DATE . It reiterated that the interpretation of transitional provisions was a matter for the ordinary courts and held that the criteria relied on by ORG in the impugned decision for declaring the appeal on points of law inadmissible were both reasoned and reasonable . That court ’s construction of the provisions of the new legislation was neither arbitrary nor ill - founded . The fact that in its decision it had relied on a provision that had come into force after notice of appeal had been given but before the appeal had been entered with ORG was not decisive as no constitutional provision prohibited amending the appeals procedure so long as the right to a fair hearing was protected .

Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the LAW provides :

“ Everyone has the right to effective protection by the judges and courts in the exercise of his rights and his legitimate interests ; in no circumstances may there be any denial of defence rights . ”

Transitional provision no . CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , which amended LAW , provides :

“ No ordinary appeal or appeal on points of law shall lie against a judicial decision in a civil matter delivered after this PERSON comes into force unless the decision satisfies the conditions laid down in this PERSON for that purpose .

With regard to pending appeals on points of law whose admissibility has not yet been determined , ORG of ORG ... may declare an appeal inadmissible for the reasons set out in LAW , as amended by this PERSON . In that connection , both the grounds of appeal and the limits referred to in rule CARDINAL of sub - paragraph CARDINAL of that Article shall be governed by the legislation in force at the time of the entering ( interposición ) of the appeal ... ”

Before Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL came into force , the relevant provisions governing notice of appeal to ORG ( preparación del recurso ) read as follows :

“ Notice of appeal shall be given in writing to the judicial authority which delivered the impugned decision within DATE from DATE after the decision was served . The notice of appeal shall contain a statement [ by the appellant ] of his intention to appeal to ORG , a brief summary of the conditions that have to be satisfied and a request that the appeal be acknowledged as having been made in time and in the prescribed form , that the original case file , with the appeal file where appropriate , be sent to ORG and that the parties be summoned to appear .

If no notice of intention to appeal has been given within DATE , the judgment or decision shall become final . ”

“ Notice of intention to appeal shall be given by the lawyers ( procurador and abogado ) representing the appellant ... ”

“ If notice of intention to appeal has been given in accordance with the preceding CARDINAL provisions and concerns a decision against which an appeal lies , ORG shall acknowledge that notice of intention to appeal has been given ( tendrá por preparado [ el recurso ] ) and within DATE shall send the original case file and the appeal file to ORG .

At the same time the parties shall be summoned to appear before ORG within not DATE . However , only the appellant shall be required to appear in order to enter the appeal on points of law .

“ A party which has given notice of intention to appeal shall enter the appeal with ORG within DATE from the date on which [ the parties ] were summoned [ to appear ] .

If the appeal is not entered within that time , the judgment or decision shall become final . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL governs the entering of appeals on points of law . As amended by Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , it is worded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . After the case file has been forwarded by ORG , it shall be sent to the reporting judge , who shall consider it and submit it to the ORG for it to decide on how to deal with it in accordance with the following rules :

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall ... declare an appeal inadmissible where , notwithstanding that notice of appeal has been given , the ORG finds that Articles CARDINAL and DATE have not been complied with , or where the provisions relied on have no relevance to the matters at issue in the appeal , or where rectification of a defect has been ordered but the case file shows that it has not been carried out .

( CARDINAL ) An appeal shall be declared inadmissible ... where the amount in issue has not been calculated in accordance with the applicable rules or where the ORG holds that the amount is less than the amounts mentioned in LAW . ”

As amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , section CARDINAL of ORG provides :

“ No appeal shall lie against judgments delivered by the Audiencia provincial sitting as an appellate court except where they concern disputes over leases of commercial property for which the agreed rent exceeds MONEY , in which case an appeal on points of law may be made on the grounds and in accordance with the procedures laid down in LAW . ”

Before Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was enacted the relevant minimum sum was MONEY .

Article CARDINAL of the royal decree of DATE promulgating LAW provides :

“ For appeals on points of law entered ( interpuestos ) before DATE , the procedure laid down by the legislation currently in force shall apply ; for [ appeals entered ] after that date the procedure laid down by the new legislation shall apply , even if notice of appeal was given before that date . ”

In a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) of DATE , which concerned a case similar to the instant CARDINAL , ORG laid down the principles governing the application ratione temporis of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE . It stated , in particular , that ORG interpretation of transitional provision no . CARDINAL , though justified on the facts , should not be considered the only construction possible . It also explained that the term “ interposición ” used in transitional provision no . CARDINAL referred to the entering of an appeal on points of law with ORG and not the giving of notice of appeal to the Audiencia provincial . Consequently , the system prior to the amendment introduced by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL applied to giving notice of appeal and the new system to entering an appeal . ORG also referred to its settled case - law to the effect that LAW did not afford parties to proceedings any guarantee that the appeals system established by law would not be modified , so long as the parties’ right to a “ fair hearing ” was not infringed and decisions declaring appeals inadmissible were not unjustified or ill - founded . Lastly , it pointed out with regard to transitional provisions that , in accordance with LAW , it was for the ordinary courts alone to determine the applicable rule . In conclusion , ORG dismissed the amparo appeal .

Earlier , in a decision of DATE concerning amparo appeal no . CARDINAL , ORG had considered the issue of the applicability ratione temporis of the second transitional provision of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE . That provision also amended LAW but , unlike PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , provided : “ After the proceedings to which they refer have ended , appeals to ORG which have been entered ( interpuestos ) shall be conducted in accordance with the amendments made by this PERSON . ” In that case the appellants had given notice of appeal in accordance with the provisions of legislation previously in force and had then entered the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the new legislation , the substantive requirements of which were , however , no different from those of the earlier legislation . ORG held that while the word “ interponer ” appeared to refer to the formal entering of the appeal , the reference to the ending of the proceedings suggested , however , that the legislature ’s intention had not been to alter the rules applicable to appeals of which notice had been given but which had yet to be entered . ORG held that ORG interpretation of that transitional provision could not be regarded as unfounded , still less as unreasonable , and that the decision as to which legislation governed the entering of the appeal – in that case the legislation previously in force – had not been deficient constitutionally . ORG accordingly allowed the amparo appeal , holding that the appellants had been the victims of excessive formalism .


Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

David Thór Björgvinsson;Gaukur Jörundsson

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE , at DATE , the applicant completed his training as a navigation officer at ORG and started work as a seaman . This he continued to do until DATE , when he sustained a serious work accident on board a trawler . His right leg was struck by a QUANTITY stone object , causing a compound fracture of his ankle . As a result , he had to give up work as a seaman . His disability was assessed at PERCENT , which made him eligible for a disability pension from ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , to which he paid premiums intermittently from DATE until DATE . The assessment was made on the basis of the criteria that applied under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Law no . TIME “ the DATE LAW ) , notably that the claimant was unable to carry out the work he had performed before his disability , that his participation in the ORG had been intended to insure against this contingency , and that he had a sustained loss of fitness for work ( of PERCENT or more ) .

The applicant underwent regular disability assessments by a physician accredited by ORG and was each time assessed PERCENT disabled in relation to his previous job .

After his accident the applicant joined a transport company , ORG , as an office assistant , and is still employed there as head of the claims department .

In DATE LAW was amended by DATE of PERSON no . MONEY ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which considerably altered the basis for the assessment of disability in that the assessment was to be based not on the Pension Fund beneficiaries’ inability to perform the same work but work in general . The new provisions had been enacted on the initiative of ORG and in view of the ORG ’s financial difficulties ( according to an audit , at DATE the Pension Fund had a deficit of CARDINAL NORP krónur ( ISK ) ) . ORG applied the new provisions not only to persons who had claimed a disability pension after the date of their entry into force but also to persons who were already in receipt of a disability pension before DATE .

Under an interim provision in DATE , the above change to the reference criteria was not to apply for DATE after the commencement of the CARDINAL LAW to a person who , before its entry into force , was already receiving a disability pension .

NORP Under the new rules , a fresh assessment of the applicant ’s disability was carried out by an officially accredited ORG physician , who concluded that the applicant ’s loss of capacity for work in general was PERCENT , and thus did not reach the minimum level of PERCENT . As a result , from DATE onwards ORG stopped paying the applicant the disability pension and related child benefits he had been receiving for DATE since the accident in DATE .

According to information obtained by the Government from ORG and submitted to ORG , the applicant had been CARDINAL of CARDINAL Fund members who were receiving disability pensions in DATE under the interim provision in section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the total number of disability pension recipients was CARDINAL . This included ORG members who had not become entitled to a disability pension until after the commencement of the DATE Act in DATE . The cases of the aforementioned CARDINAL persons receiving disability pensions from the ORG , who had acquired their entitlement before that time and were still drawing disability pensions in DATE , were reviewed in DATE and DATE in the light of their capacity for work in general . Altogether , ORG members of this group of disability pensioners had their benefits reduced in DATE as a result of the new rules on disability assessment under LAW . In the case of ORG members , including the applicant , the disability rating for work in general did not reach the level of PERCENT required under LAW to retain entitlement to disability benefit , and so benefit payments were discontinued . The disability ratings of CARDINAL members were reduced from PERCENT and those of CARDINAL members from PERCENT .

The applicant instituted proceedings against ORG and , in the alternative , against both the ORG and ORG , challenging the ORG ’s decision to discontinue the payments to him . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found for the defendants .

The applicant appealed to ORG , which by a judgment of DATE upheld the judgment of ORG .

ORG accepted that the applicant ’s pension rights under LAW were protected by the relevant provisions of LAW as property rights . However , it considered that the measures taken by virtue of LAW had been justified by ORG financial difficulties . ORG stated :

“ The pension rights that the appellant had earned under PERSON no . CARDINAL were protected under what was then LAW ( currently LAW see section CARDINAL of LAW , Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Under the constitutional provision referred to above , he could not be deprived of those rights except under an unequivocal provision of law . The ORG does not consider that section CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL provided authorisation for the [ ORG to curtail the benefit provisions ; this could only be done under an unequivocal provision of law . Nor can the ORG accept that the wording of subsection ( CARDINAL ) of LAW no . CARDINAL meant that the ORG member did not have an unequivocal right to have his disability assessed in terms of his capacity to do his previous job .

The evidence in the case shows that ORG was operated at a considerable deficit , and that at DATE more than ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL would have been needed for the principal of the ORG , together with the premiums that it could expect , to cover its commitments , this estimate being based on an DATE interest rate of PERCENT . In order to tackle this large deficit , ORG asked for amendments to be made to the LAW under which the ORG operated . It is clear that the reduction of the pension rights that resulted from LAW no . DATE was based on relevant considerations . Even though that LAW was repealed by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , this does not change the fact that the appellant ’s legal position had already been determined by PERSON no . DATE . The ORG concurs with ORG view that PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not constitute a valid legal authorisation for making amendments to the rights that the ORG member had earned during the period of validity of the former legislation .

The reduction according to Act no . DATE was of a general nature as it treated in a comparable manner all those who enjoyed or could enjoy pension rights . An adaptation period of DATE applied to all pensioners , as stated above . All those who can be considered to be in a comparable situation have been treated equally ... ”

On DATE the applicant lost pension rights ( disability and children ’s annuity benefits ) amounting to ORG CARDINAL . He presented the following breakdown of this figure :

Value of the principal , based on disability pension payment of ORG CARDINAL per month until he reached DATE : ISK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL

Value of the principal of child benefit based on the same LOC , until the children reached the age of CARDINAL :

ORG CARDINAL

PERSON DATE ORG CARDINAL

Asmundur DATE ORG CARDINAL

Total ISK CARDINAL

The applicant has supplied the following information about his income from DATE onwards :

DATE ORG CARDINAL

DATE ORG CARDINAL

DATE ORG CARDINAL

CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL

DATE ORG CARDINAL

CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL

Total ISK CARDINAL

The applicant has also submitted certain figures from a survey of seamen ’s salaries obtained from ORG and Fishing Vessels Officers’ Guild :

“ Ordinary seaman ” Second mate First mate Master

DATE PERCENT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL

DATE CARDINAL PERCENT CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL

DATE CARDINAL CARDINAL CARDINAL CARDINAL

CARDINAL CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL

CARDINAL CARDINAL PERCENT CARDINAL CARDINAL

Total CARDINAL PERCENT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL

Income derived by the applicant from office work :

CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL CARDINAL

Difference PERCENT CARDINAL CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Law no . TIME “ the DATE LAW ) read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG member who has paid premiums to the Fund for DATE , and for CARDINAL of DATE , shall be entitled to a disability pension if he suffers a loss of fitness for work that the senior consulting physician assesses at PERCENT or more . This disability assessment shall be based mainly on the ORG member ’s incapacity to do the job in which he was engaged and on which his membership of the ORG is based . Despite being disabled , no person shall be entitled to a disability pension while retaining full wages for the job that he used to do , or while receiving equally high wages for another job which grants pension rights , and the pension shall never be higher than the equivalent of the loss of income demonstrably incurred by the ORG member as a result of his disability .

( CARDINAL ) A disabled person who applies for a disability pension from the ORG or receives such a pension shall be obliged to provide ORG with all the information on his health and earned income that is necessary to determine his right to receive the pension . ”

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the applicant was eligible to receive child benefits .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) read :

“ For DATE after the commencement of this LAW , the disability assessment of disability pensioners who already receive benefit due to loss of working capacity before the commencement of the LAW shall be based on their incapacity for the job in which they were previously engaged and on which their membership of the ORG is based , but after that time it shall be based on their incapacity for work in general . Furthermore , the change in the child benefit entitlement of the recipients of disability pensions resulting from section CARDINAL of this Act shall not take effect until DATE after the commencement of the LAW . ”

LAW , as amended by LAW , was replaced by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the LAW ” ) when it came into force on DATE . All the provisions covering the basis of disability pensions and child benefit payments were removed from the LAW and included in the LAW on the Seamen ’s Pension Fund , which also came into force on DATE . According to the Government , this did not affect the applicant specifically , since the interim provision of the DATE Act still applied to his situation until DATE . The applicant contended that the interim provision had been repealed on DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

András Sajó;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Batman .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged a case with ORG against ORG for the annulment of an administrative decision refusing his request for compensation of disability .

On DATE the court issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and transferred the case to ORG , which dismissed the applicant ’s claim on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s request for rectification introduced on DATE was rejected by ORG .

On DATE the judgment was notified to the applicant .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in LOC .

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

The applicant was convicted on DATE of conspiracy to deliver counterfeit notes , granted bail and sentenced on DATE to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . During the trial it emerged that CARDINAL of the jurors had been bribed . The judge discharged the juror and proceeded with the trial , saying that he was reluctant to order a retrial because it would delay the proceedings . According to LANGUAGE law this was not a factor which the judge should have considered in exercising his discretion .

The applicant applied for leave to appeal on DATE . His application was refused on CARDINAL DATE . He made an application to the full ORG for leave to appeal , which was refused on DATE . On DATE he filed a renewed application for leave to appeal . There was a hearing of his application on DATE , when he was granted leave to appeal . On DATE , following a hearing , ORG granted his appeal .

The applicant appealed to ORG for compensation for wrongful conviction and detention . By a letter dated DATE he was informed that under LANGUAGE law there was no general entitlement to recompense for wrongful conviction and that the facts of his case did not entitle him to compensation under the statutory scheme ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) or to an ex gratia payment .

The applicant applied for legal aid to challenge this decision and was refused . His appeal against the refusal of legal aid was dismissed on DATE , on the grounds that he had no reasonable propects of success in the proceedings .


Preliminary objection rejected (ratione temporis);Violation of P1-1;No violation of Art. 8;Just satisfaction reserved

The applicant , a NORP national , grew up in GPE in northern GPE . In DATE she married and moved with her husband to GPE .

She claims to be the owner of plots of land nos . DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL in GPE in northern GPE and she alleges that prior to the NORP occupation of northern GPE on DATE , work had commenced on plot no . CARDINAL for the construction of flats , CARDINAL of which was intended as a home for her family . Her ownership of the properties is attested by certificates of registration issued by LOC and ORG at the moment of acquisition .

She states that she has been prevented in the past , and is still prevented , by NORP forces from returning to PERSON and " peacefully enjoying " her property .

On DATE the applicant participated in a march organised by a women ’s group ( " Women Walk Home " movement ) in the village of Lymbia near the NORP village of PERSON in the occupied area of northern GPE . The aim of the march was to assert the right of NORP refugees to return to their homes .

Leading a group of CARDINAL marchers she advanced up a hill towards ORG in the NORP - occupied part of GPE passing the ORG Nations’ guard post on the way . When they reached the churchyard they were surrounded by NORP soldiers and prevented from moving any further .

She was eventually detained by members of the NORP police force and brought by ambulance to GPE . She was released TIME , having been detained for TIME .

In his report of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG document S/CARDINAL ) on ORG in GPE ( for the period DATE ) the Secretary - General of ORG described the demonstration of DATE as follows ( at paragraph CARDINAL ) :

" In DATE , considerable tension occurred over the well - publicized plans of a NORP women ’s group to organize a large demonstration with the announced intention of crossing the NORP forces cease - fire line . In this connection it is relevant to recall that , following violent demonstrations in the ORG buffer - zone in DATE , ORG had given assurances that it would in future do whatever was necessary to ensure respect for the buffer - zone ... Accordingly , ORG asked the Government to take effective action to prevent any demonstrators from entering the buffer - zone , bearing in mind that such entry would lead to a situation that might be difficult to control . The demonstration took place on DATE . CARDINAL women crossed the buffer - zone at ORG and some managed to cross the NORP forces’ line . A smaller group crossed that line at GPE . At PERSON , a large number of NORP women arrived shortly after the NORP Cypriots and mounted a counter demonstration , remaining however on their side of the line . Unarmed NORP soldiers opposed the demonstrators and , thanks largely to the manner in which they and the NORP police dealt with the situation , the demonstration passed without serious incident . Altogether , CARDINAL demonstrators were arrested by NORP police in the QUANTITY locations ; they were released to ORG DATE . "

NORP armed forces of CARDINAL personnel are stationed throughout the whole of the occupied area of northern GPE , which is constantly patrolled and has checkpoints on all main lines of communication . The army ’s headquarters are in GPE . ORG is based in PERSON ( PERSON ) with its sector covering GPE to the PERSON Milia suburb of GPE and with CARDINAL personnel . ORG , with CARDINAL personnel , is based at GPE village , and its sector ranges from GPE village to GPE . ORG ( NORP Forces in GPE under LAW ) is stationed at GPE near GPE , with a sector running from FAC to LOC . A NORP naval command and outpost are based at GPE and PERSON respectively . NORP airforce personnel are based at PERSON , PERSON and other airfields . The NORP airforce is stationed on the NORP mainland at GPE .

The NORP forces and all civilians entering military areas are subject to NORP military courts , as stipulated so far as concerns " GPE citizens " by ORG of DATE ( section CARDINAL ) and LAW TRNC " .

LAW b ) of the CARDINAL DATE LAW of the " GPE " ( the " TRNC " ) provides , where relevant , as follows :

" All immovable properties , buildings and installations which were found abandoned on DATE when ORG of GPE was proclaimed or which were considered by law as abandoned or ownerless after the above - mentioned date , or which should have been in the possession or control of the public even though their ownership had not yet been determined ... and ... situated within the boundaries of the GPE on DATE , shall be the property of the GPE notwithstanding the fact that they are not so registered in the books of ORG ; and ORG shall be amended accordingly . "

On DATE , in response to the proclamation of the establishment of the " TRNC " , ORG adopted Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) which provides , where relevant , as follows :

" ORG ...

Deplores the declaration of the NORP authorities of the purported secession of part of GPE ;

Considers the declaration ... as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal ...

Calls upon all GPE to respect the sovereignty , independence , territorial integrity and non - alignment of GPE ;

Calls upon all GPE not to recognise any ORG other than GPE ... "

LAW ( DATE ) , adopted on CARDINAL DATE in response to the exchange of " ambassadors " between GPE and the " GPE " stated , inter alia :

" ORG ...

ORG its Resolution MONEY ( DATE ) and calls for its urgent and effective implementation ;

Condemns all secessionist actions , including the purported exchange of ambassadors between GPE and the NORP leadership , declares them illegal and invalid and calls for their immediate withdrawal ;

Reiterates the call upon all GPE not to recognise the purported ORG of the " GPE " set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity ;

Calls upon all GPE to respect the sovereignty , independence , territorial integrity , unity and non - alignment of GPE ... "

In DATE , ORG decided that it continued to regard the Government of GPE as the sole legitimate Government of GPE and called for the respect of the sovereignty , independence , territorial integrity and unity of GPE .

On DATE ORG issued the following statement :

" The ten Member States of the European Community are deeply concerned by the declaration purporting to establish a ‘ Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ as an independent ORG . They reject this declaration , which is in disregard of successive resolutions of ORG . The CARDINAL reiterate their unconditional support for the independence , sovereignty , territorial integrity and unity of GPE . They continue to regard the Government of President PERSON as the sole legitimate Government of GPE . They call upon all interested parties not to recognize this act , which creates a very serious situation in the area . "

The Commonwealth Heads of Government , meeting in GPE from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , issued a press communiqué stating , inter alia , as follows :

" [ The ] Heads of Government condemned the declaration by the NORP authorities issued on DATE to create a secessionist state in northern GPE , in the area under foreign occupation . Fully endorsing ORG CARDINAL , they denounced the declaration as legally invalid and reiterated the call for its non - recognition and immediate withdrawal . They further called upon all GPE not to facilitate or in any way assist the illegal secessionist entity . They regarded this illegal act as a challenge to the international community and demanded the implementation of the relevant ORG on GPE . "

On DATE , the NORP Minister for ORG deposited the following declaration with the Secretary General of ORG pursuant to LAW ( article CARDINAL ) :

" On behalf of ORG and acting in accordance with LAW article DATE ) of LAW , I hereby declare as follows :

The Government of the Republic of Turkey acting in accordance with LAW article DATE ) of LAW , hereby recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of ORG in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the LAW which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of LAW ( article CARDINAL ) , performed within the boundaries of the national territory of GPE , and provided further that such matters have previously been examined by the Commission within the power conferred upon it by GPE .

This Declaration is made on condition of reciprocity , including reciprocity of obligations assumed under LAW . It is valid for DATE as from the date of its deposit and extends to matters raised in respect of facts , including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit of the present Declaration . "

The above declaration was renewed for DATE as from DATE in substantially the same terms .


On DATE , during a television broadcast , the head of ORG , PERSON , accused PERSON , the then Vice - President of ORG and President of CARDINAL of the political parties represented in ORG , of corruption and , together with a mafia gang , of protecting several companies allegedly involved in criminal activities . He stated , inter alia , that :

“ ... Mr PERSON should have been arrested as he has committed both a criminal offence and a minor administrative offence ... A criminal file concerning protecting criminals will be sent to ORG and to the court ... These companies [ which were suspected of being involved in criminal activities ] are being protected by the criminal gang headed by PERSON and by PERSON from ORG ... ”

On DATE Flux published an article entitled “ The anti - corruption war : General N.A. versus President PERSON . PERSON claims that PERSON is providing political protection to a mafia clan . ”

The article contained a word - by - word account of the televised broadcast of DATE and the newspaper 's commentary .

On DATE PERSON brought a civil defamation action against ORG and argued that a large number of ORG 's statements published by ORG were untrue and defamatory of him . The title of the article was not among those statements .

On DATE , by a final judgment , ORG found that the statements complained of by PERSON were not defamatory of him , inter alia , because ORG had simply reproduced ORG 's statements . However , it found that the following part of the article 's title was defamatory of PERSON : “ ORG claims that PERSON is providing political protection to a mafia clan ” . The court found that no such sentence had been pronounced by ORG during the broadcast of DATE and that the newspaper had not adduced evidence to prove that PERSON was a member of a mafia clan . The court ordered the newspaper to pay the plaintiff CARDINAL Moldovan Lei ( MDL ) and to issue an apology within DATE . The newspaper was also ordered to pay the court fees .

The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the material time read :

LAW of honour and dignity

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any natural or legal person shall be entitled to apply to the courts to seek the withdrawal of statements which are damaging to his or her honour and dignity and do not correspond to reality , as well as statements which are not damaging to honour and dignity , but do not correspond to reality .

( CARDINAL ) When the media body which circulated such statements is not capable of proving that these statements correspond to reality , the court shall compel the publishing office of the media body to publish , not later then DATE after the entry into force of the judicial decision , a withdrawal of the statements in the same column , on the same page or in the same programme or series of broadcasts . ”

LAW for moral damage

“ ( CARDINAL ) The moral damage caused to a person as a result of circulation through the mass media or by organisations or persons of statements which do not correspond to reality , as well as statements concerning his or her private or family life without his or her consent , shall be compensated by way of a pecuniary award . The amount of the award shall be determined by the court .

( CARDINAL ) The amount of the award shall be determined by the court in each case as an amount equal to DATE minimum wages if the information has been circulated by a legal person and DATE minimum wages if the information has been circulated by a natural person . ”


CASE OF ÖSTERREICHISCHER RUNDFUNK v. AUSTRIA

Violation of Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is ORG ( ORG ) , a public law foundation ( PERSON ) with its seat in GPE .

On DATE the applicant broadcast information on the evening news of its regional television channel about the release on parole of PERSON , head of a neo - NORP organisation called LAW to ORG – “ VAPO ” ) who had been sentenced under LAW ( GPE , “ the LAW ” ) . This news item also mentioned his deputy PERSON , who had been convicted under LAW in DATE and had been released on parole DATE . Its text ran as follows :

“ For PERSON [ full name ] was known as the head of the NORP neo - NORP scene . But it was only after the strengthening of LAW in DATE that he was charged and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . Many other members of the ORG were put behind bars along with him , among them PERSON name ] – who has also recently been released . K.[family name ] , now aged DATE , made the headlines even while in prison in GPE , for instance at the first letter bomb trial . His release DATE , however , took place without much ado . Waiting journalists saw nothing but his belongings packed in boxes . ”

While the third sentence of this text was broadcast , a picture showing PERSON at his trial in DATE was broadcast for TIME .

The news item was followed by a brief statement of the commentator . He stated that PERSON had served DATE of his sentence . ORG had opposed his release on parole , but ORG had granted PERSON 's request , having refused his first request for early release in DATE .

On DATE S. brought proceedings under LAW ) , requesting that the applicant be prohibited from publishing his picture without his consent accompanied by any text stating that he had been convicted LAW once the sentence had been executed or once he had been released on parole . In addition he requested a preliminary injunction to that effect .

In its submissions in reply ( PERSON ) the applicant asserted that it had reported on true facts . As regards the publication of the applicant 's picture the applicant referred to ORG established case - law that LAW had to be interpreted in the light of LAW of LAW ( see below ) . Given that PERSON was an adult who had been convicted of a crime , it followed from LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW that the publication of his picture only violated his legitimate interests if it substantially prejudiced his economic advancement . Even if the claimant 's legitimate interests were affected , they had to be weighed against the public interest in the publication . In the present case , the public interest was predominant , given that ORG was an organisation which aimed at destroying the NORP constitutional order and that CARDINAL of its leading members , namely PERSON and the claimant , had been released from prison within a short period . Other media including CARDINAL leading DATE newspapers had also mentioned PERSON 's release in the context of reports on PERSON 's release . Finally , the applicant emphasised that under the relevant broadcasting laws it even had an obligation to impart information on political issues .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) granted the preliminary injunction .

ORG noted that the following facts were undisputed : The claimant , who had been convicted under LAW in DATE and had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment , had been one of the leading members of ORG which aimed at fighting against democratic order in GPE . He had participated in training camps organised by ORG which were destined to train to kill . He had been released on DATE and PERSON DATE on DATE . On the latter date the applicant had broadcast the report at issue .

As to the interpretation of Section CARDINAL of LAW in conjunction with LAW of LAW , the ORG agreed that the legitimate interests of an adult who had been convicted of a crime were only violated if the publication of his name or picture disproportionately prejudiced his economic advancement .

Applying this case - law to the facts of the present case , ORG noted that the report in the present case dealt mainly with PERSON 's release on parole . In its view there was an evident interest of S. not to have broadcast his picture taken in the course of criminal proceedings dating DATE back , even if the fact that he had meanwhile been released on parole was mentioned . S. 's picture had been widely broadcast at the time of the criminal proceedings against him . However , its broadcasting at the present stage did not add any relevant information to the report at issue , even if the criminal proceedings against him had been among the most important ones conducted under LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

ORG confirmed ORG assessment that the publication of PERSON 's picture had violated his legitimate interests within the meaning of Section CARDINAL of LAW read in conjunction with LAW of LAW . Like ORG it stressed in particular that PERSON 's picture had been broadcast in the context of a report on the release of another person , PERSON , and found that PERSON had an evident interest not to have his picture published in that context even if his own release dating DATE back had also been mentioned . Even taking into account that PERSON had a certain degree of notoriety , his advancement within the meaning of LAW of LAW had been hampered disproportionately by the new publication of a picture taken at his trial .

ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) rejected the applicant 's extraordinary appeal on points of law on DATE .

In the subsequent main proceedings , ORG gave judgment on DATE . It ordered the applicant to refrain from publishing PERSON 's picture without his consent if it was accompanied by any text stating that he had been convicted under LAW once the sentence had been executed or he had been released on parole . In its reasoning it repeated the arguments which had been developed in the preliminary injunction proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . It repeated the arguments set out in its judgment of DATE . Moreover , it referred to ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's extraordinary appeal on points of law .

The decision was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .

The general framework for broadcasting is set out in LAW concerning the Safeguarding of ORG of DATE ( “ LAW ” , ORG über die Sicherung der ORG , ORG no . ORG ) . LAW , as far as material , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Broadcasting shall be governed by more detailed rules to be set out in a federal law . Such a law must inter alia contain provisions guaranteeing the objectivity and impartiality of reporting , the diversity of opinions , balanced programming and the independence of persons and bodies responsible for carrying out the duties defined in paragraph CARDINAL . ”

With effect of DATE the ORG , which had been a public law corporation before , was transformed into a public law foundation , a legal entity without an owner by the LAW on ORG ( “ the DATE LAW , Bundesgesetz über den ORG , ORG no . ORG ) . Those provisions of the law relating to the setting up of the ORG 's organs entered into force on DATE , the law in its entirety came into force on DATE .

The foundation has to fulfil a public law mandate which comprises operating CARDINAL national television programmes plus CARDINAL national and CARDINAL regional radio programmes ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

In accordance with LAW the ORG has to provide comprehensive news coverage of major political , social , economic , cultural and sporting events . In its broadcasts it has to observe the requirements of objectivity and diversity of views and has to preserve its independence from the ORG , parties , other media or lobbying groups ( LAW DATE and CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to LAW the ORG 's bodies are ORG ( NORP ) , the Director General ( ORG ) , ORG ( NORP ) and ORG ) . In the exercise of their functions , all members of these bodies are only subject to the law and are not bound by any instructions ( LAW ) .

LAW regulates the appointment of ORG . It consists of CARDINAL members who are appointed as follows : CARDINAL by ORG upon proposals of the political parties represented in ORG ( PERSON ) , CARDINAL by the ORG , CARDINAL by ORG , CARDINAL by ORG and CARDINAL by ORG ( PERSON ) . Pursuant to LAW , ORG is in charge of monitoring the management and of appointing the Director General .

NORP The Director General is appointed for DATE . ORG can only remove him from office with a CARDINAL majority ( Section QUANTITY and CARDINAL ) . The Director General runs the ORG 's activitites . He is not bound by any instructions ( LAW ) .

ORG is composed of CARDINAL members representing different sectors of society . Its task is to represent the interests of the audience ( Section CARDINAL ) .

NORP The programme fees are fixed by ORG and are subject to approval by ORG QUANTITY and CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL the ORG has to guarantee the independence of all editorial and journalistic members of its staff . To safeguard the latter 's independence the ORG has to conclude an Editor 's ORG ) with the staff representatives elected by secret ballot .

Section CARDINAL provides that ORG ( PERSON ) decides on alleged violations of the CARDINAL Act , unless the issue falls within the competence of the courts or administrative authorities .

The ORG does not have a broadcasting monopoly . Private broadcasters may obtain licences under LAW ( NORP ) and LAW ( Privatfernsehgesetz ) .

ORG , established by the LAW on the Communication Authority Austria ( ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) consists of CARDINAL members , who are appointed for a term of DATE . CARDINAL members have to be judges CARDINAL of whom is elected by the ORG as its Chairperson . All members of the ORG are independent in the exercise of their functions and are not bound by any instructions . ORG is competent to monitor the ORG 's compliance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to supervise the KommAustria , the authority competent for all matters of broadcasting regulation , including the granting of licences to private broadcasters and the supervision of private broadcasters ' compliance with the provisions of ORG and LAW . The decisions of ORG are subject to an appeal to ORG .

Section CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Images of persons shall neither be exhibited publicly , nor disseminated in any other way in which they are made accessible to the public , where the legitimate interests of the person in question or , in the event that they have died without having authorised or ordered publication , of a close relative would be injured ... ”

Starting with its judgment of DATE ( CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON , CARDINAL ) ORG has consistently held that Section CARDINAL of LAW has to be interpreted in the light of LAW of LAW .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where publication is made , through any medium , of a name , image or other particulars which are likely to lead to the disclosure to a larger not directly informed circle of people of the identity of a person who

NORP has been the victim of an offence punishable by the courts , or

NORP is suspected of having committed , or has been convicted of , a punishable offence ,

and where the legitimate interests of that person are thereby harmed and there is no predominant public interest in the publication of such details on account of the person 's position in society , of some other connection with public life , or of other reasons , the victim shall have a claim against the owner of the medium ( publisher ) for damages for the injury suffered . The award of damages shall not exceed CARDINAL ; additionally , Section CARDINAL ) , second sentence , shall apply .

( CARDINAL ) The legitimate interests of the victim shall in any event be harmed if the publication

NORP in the case of subsection ( CARDINAL)CARDINAL , is such as to give rise to an interference with the victim 's strictly private life or to his or her exposure ,

NORP in the case of subsection ( CARDINAL , relates to a juvenile or merely to a lesser indictable offence or may disproportionately prejudice the victim 's advancement .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG ” ) suspended the applicant from work for gross misconduct , that is , suspicion of fraud , malfeasance in public office and document destruction . A criminal complaint was further filed by ORG with the prosecution authorities on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant complained about the protraction of the investigation . His complaint was admitted on DATE by ORG as no procedural act had been carried out until DATE . The prosecuting authorities were instructed to deal with the complaint within reasonable delays .

On DATE ORG with ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ the Prosecutor ” ) decided to initiate the criminal prosecution against the applicant .

By a subsequent decision of DATE the Prosecutor rejected the initiation of prosecution in respect of the applicant as his conduct did not meet the statutory essential elements of the prosecuted offences . ORG contested this decision before ORG .

On DATE the contestation was allowed and the criminal prosecution was resumed .

Subsequent to the examination of evidence ( hearing of CARDINAL witness testimonies and examination of few documents , without the commission of any expert study ) , the Prosecutor decided on DATE to discontinue the investigation in respect of the applicant . The decision was challenged by ORG before ORG with ORG and ORG .

On DATE the contestation was allowed and the impugned decision was quashed . The case was reopened for further investigation before the prosecuting authorities .

On DATE the Prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation against the applicant in respect of the charges of fraud and malfeasance in public office . At the same time , an administrative fine was imposed for charges of document destruction .

The decision was upheld before ORG and became final on DATE .

Subsequent to the decisions to discontinue the criminal prosecution against him , the applicant requested to resume his work at ORG . Following the latter ’s refusal , the applicant brought CARDINAL sets of labour litigations against his employer on DATE and on an unspecified date in DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first action . It ruled that the applicant could not resume work since the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation had not been final at that time . Later on the applicant was reinstated to a different position at ORG . Shortly afterwards , the employment contract was voluntarily terminated .

The second action was allowed by way of a final decision . On DATE ORG of GPE awarded the applicant the retroactive payment of wages he had been entitled to .


CASE OF SAVEZ CRKAVA "RIJEC ZIVOTA" AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 14+9;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants are churches of a Reformist denomination which are registered as religious communities under NORP law and which have their seats in GPE ( the first and second applicant churches ) and ORG the third applicant church ) .

The first applicant church has been present in GPE since DATE , the second since DATE and the third since DATE as part of ORG and since DATE as an independent church . The applicant churches were entered in the register of religious communities in GPE on DATE ( the first applicant church ) , DATE ( the second applicant church ) and DATE ( the third applicant church ) , in accordance with LAW .

On DATE the applicant churches submitted a request to ORG for Relations with Religious Communities ( ORG za odnose s vjerskim zajednicama – “ ORG ” ) in order to conclude an agreement with ORG , as envisaged in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which would regulate their relations with the State . They explained that without such an agreement they were unable to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries , to provide pastoral care to their members in medical and social - welfare institutions , as well to those in prisons and penitentiaries , or to perform religious marriages with the effects of a civil marriage .

On DATE the Government of GPE adopted an instruction ( zaključak CARDINAL “ the Instruction ” ) setting out the criteria which religious communities had to satisfy in order to conclude such an agreement with it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant churches that they did not satisfy , either individually or jointly , the historical and numerical criteria set out in the above Instruction , that is to say , that they had not been present in the territory of GPE since DATE and that the number of their adherents did not exceed CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Referring to section QUANTITY of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and sections DATE ) and CARDINAL of ORG Sentences Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , it also remarked that members of religious communities which had not concluded the relevant agreement with ORG had a right to receive pastoral care in medical and social - welfare institutions as well as in prisons and penitentiaries .

On DATE the applicant churches submitted another request to conclude an appropriate agreement with ORG , this time addressing it to the Prime Minister directly .

In a letter of DATE ORG replied to the applicant churches’ request of DATE , informing them again that they did not satisfy , either individually or jointly , the criteria set forth in the Instruction of DATE , this time without specifying which particular criteria had not been met . It again referred to section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW and sections DATE ) and CARDINAL of ORG , reiterating its opinion that the members of religious communities which had not concluded appropriate agreements with ORG had a right to receive pastoral care in medical and social - welfare institutions and in prisons and penitentiaries .

NORP The applicant churches then lodged a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right ( zahtjev za zaštitu ustavom zajamčenog prava ) with ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) against ORG refusal of DATE , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They argued that the refusal , even though it had been given in the form of a letter , constituted “ an individual legal act ” ( that is , a decision ) , within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW , that had violated their constitutional right to equality of all religious communities before the law , as guaranteed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG declared their action inadmissible , holding that ORG refusal did not constitute “ an individual act ” for the purposes of CARDINAL of LAW , and thus was not susceptible to that court ’s review .

The applicant churches then lodged a constitutional complaint , relying again , inter alia , on LAW and alleging a violation of their constitutional right to equality of all religious communities before the law . On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant churches’ constitutional complaint , finding , inter alia , that LAW was not applicable in the particular case .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant churches filed a petition with ORG for an abstract review of constitutionality and legality , asking it to examine the conformity of the Instruction of DATE with LAW and LAW . On DATE ORG declared the applicant churches’ petition inadmissible , finding that the contested Instruction was not subordinate legislation susceptible to a review of constitutionality and legality .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) and CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other belief , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .

All shall be equal before the law . ”

“ Rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others , the legal order , public morals or health .

Every restriction of the rights and freedoms should be proportional to the nature of the necessity for the restriction in each individual case . ”

“ Freedom of conscience and religion and freedom to profess faith or other belief publicly shall be guaranteed . ”

“ All religious communities shall be equal before the law and shall be separated from the ORG .

Religious communities shall be free to , in accordance with the law , perform religious services publicly , open schools , educational and other institutions , social - welfare and charitable institutions and to administer them , and in their activities enjoy the protection and assistance of the ORG . ”

“ International agreements in force , which were concluded and ratified in accordance with the LAW and made public , shall be part of the internal legal order of GPE and shall have precedence in terms of their legal effects over the [ domestic ] statutes . ... ”

In its decisions nos . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) ORG held that all rights guaranteed in the LAW and its Protocols were also to be considered constitutional rights having legal force equal to the provisions of LAW .

The relevant provisions of the LAW on the Legal Status of Religious Communities ( Zakon o pravnom položaju vjerskih zajednica , ORG no . DATE “ LAW ” ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :

“ A church or a religious community of a different name ( hereafter ‘ religious community’ ) within the meaning of this LAW is a group of natural persons who exercise freedom of religion by the equal public performance of religious ceremonies and by other manifestations of their faith ( hereafter ‘ adherents’ ) and is entered in the register of religious communities in GPE . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) NORP communities operating as legal persons on DATE of the entry into force of this LAW ( hereafter ‘ existing religious communities’ ) shall be entered in the register [ of religious communities ] upon their submission of an application for registration .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON which on DATE of the entry into force of this Act do not operate as religious communities or which are established after the entry into force of this LAW ( hereafter ‘ newly established religious communities’ ) shall be entered in the register [ of religious communities ] upon their submission of an application for registration . An application for registration in the register [ of religious communities ] may be submitted by those congregations which , before submission of such an application , have operated for DATE as associations with legal personality . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Issues of common interest for GPE and CARDINAL or more religious communities may also be regulated by an agreement made between ORG and the religious community .

( CARDINAL ) With a view to implementing [ legal ] instruments regulating relations between the ORG and religious communities , as well as other issues of interest for the status and operation of religious communities , ORG shall establish a ORG . ”

( d ) Religious education and teaching of religion in educational institutions

“ ( CARDINAL ) In nurseries , at the request of parents or guardians , the curriculum of nursery education shall include teaching of religion . Teaching of religion shall be organised in accordance with the law and with an agreement between the religious community and ORG .

( CARDINAL ) In elementary schools and high schools , at the request of parents or guardians of pupils younger than DATE and on the basis of a joint declaration by students of DATE or above and their parents or guardians , a religious education course shall be organised as an optional course in accordance with the prescribed curriculum and an agreement between the religious community and ORG . ”

( e ) Pastoral care in medical and social - welfare institutions

“ The right of a religious community to provide pastoral care to its members in medical and social - welfare institutions shall be guaranteed . The manner of exercising this right shall be regulated by an agreement between the religious community and the founder of those institutions . ”

( f ) Pastoral care in prisons and penitentiaries

“ The right of a religious community to provide pastoral care to its members in prisons and penitentiaries shall be guaranteed . The manner of exercising this right shall be regulated by an agreement between the religious community and the Government of GPE . ”

( g ) Pastoral care in the armed forces and the police

“ A religious community shall have the right to provide pastoral care to its members serving in the armed forces and the police , as well as to other persons permanently employed in the armed forces and the police , and to members of their families under the conditions and in the manner regulated by an agreement with ORG . ”

The Government of GPE ’s Instruction ( zaključak ) of DATE setting out the criteria which religious communities have to satisfy in order to conclude an agreement with it ( “ the Instruction ” – not published in ORG ) reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . For the conclusion of an agreement on issues of common interest for GPE and CARDINAL or more religious communities , made between ORG and a religious community , it is necessary for one or more religious communities wishing to conclude the agreement to satisfy one of the following CARDINAL conditions :

- they were active in the territory of GPE on DATE and have continued to operate in continuity and legal succession , and the number of [ their ] adherents exceeds CARDINAL , according to the last census ,

- they are a historical religious community of the NORP cultural circle ( ORG , ORG , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE ) .

A church or a religious community that secedes or has seceded from a church or a religious community shall be regarded as a new church or religious community , and its secession or establishment shall be taken as the beginning of its activities .

The Commission for Relations with Religious Communities shall be responsible for the implementation of this instruction . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Obiteljski zakon , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :

“ Marriage shall be celebrated ... in a civil or a religious form . ”

“ Marriage in religious form with the effects of civil marriage shall be performed by the minister of a religious community with which GPE has regulated legal issues in this respect . ”

“ A marriage celebrated in religious form in accordance with the provisions of section CARDINAL ... of this Act shall from DATE of [ its ] celebration have all the effects of a civil marriage as prescribed by this LAW . ”

Section CARDINAL of the former DATE LAW ( Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti , LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL and DATE ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , provided that in the exercise of his or her right to health care , during a stay in a medical institution , every person had the right – in accordance with that LAW and other subordinate legislation on compulsory health insurance – to a diet in accordance with his or her belief and the right to perform acts of worship in the areas provided for that purpose . In the case of death , everyone had the right to be treated in accordance with religious and other customs expressing piety to the deceased .

Section CARDINAL of the new DATE LAW ( Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , contains provisions identical to those of section CARDINAL of the former DATE LAW ( see the preceding paragraph ) .

The relevant provisions of ORG o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG ) provide as follows .

Section CARDINAL provides that every prisoner has , under the conditions set forth in the LAW , inter alia , the right to profess his or her faith and to consult an authorised cleric .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that prisoners have the right to a diet in accordance with their religious demands , providing that such diet is feasible in the particular prison or penitentiary .

Section CARDINAL provides that a prison or penitentiary where a large number of prisoners of the same faith are serving their sentences must provide their cleric , at least once a week , with an adequate place and time for worship .

The relevant provisions of the LAW on the Government of GPE ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL – “ the Government of GPE ” ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :

“ The Government shall issue decisions ( odluke ) , rulings ( rješenja ) and instructions ( zaključci ) on matters that can not be regulated by decrees .

A decision shall be adopted to regulate particular issues within the competence of the ORG or to order measures , give consent to or confirm acts of other authorities or legal entities , and to decide on other matters which can not be regulated by subordinate legislation .

An instruction shall be adopted to define the ORG ’s position on issues concerning the implementation of an established policy , and to determine the tasks of ORG administrative bodies .

A ruling shall be adopted to decide on appointments or dismissals or other individual matters within the Government ’s purview . ”

“ Decrees and rules of procedure shall be published in ORG . They shall enter into force on DATE from the date of their publication , unless the instruments in question provide for some other date [ as the date ] of their entry into force .

Decisions , rulings and instructions may be published in ORG if the Government so decides when adopting these instruments . ”

The Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , DATE and MONEY ) in its relevant part provides as follows :

“ A request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom ... if such a right or freedom has been violated by a final individual act [ that is , decision ] , and no other judicial protection is secured , shall be decided by ORG ] , by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of this LAW . ”

Sections CARDINAL provide for special proceedings for the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms from unlawful factual ( physical ) acts of public authorities , if no other judicial remedy is available . Under the case - law of the domestic courts , the protection against unlawful “ acts ” also includes omissions ( for example , ORG in its decision no . Us-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and ORG in its decision no . Gž-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE held that failure of the administrative authorities to carry out their own enforcement order constituted an “ unlawful act ” within the meaning of CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL provides that such proceedings are to be instituted by bringing an “ action against an unlawful act ” ( tužba za zaštitu od nezakonite radnje ) in the competent municipal court . The action must be brought against the public authority to which the factual act ( or omission ) is imputable ( the defendant ) .

Section CARDINAL provides that the court decides on the merits of the case by a judgment . If it finds in favour of the plaintiff , the court orders the defendant to desist from the unlawful activity and , if necessary , orders restitutio in integrum .

Section CARDINAL provides that in proceedings following an “ action against an unlawful act ” the court is to apply , mutatis mutandis , the provisions of LAW .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and TIME “ the DATE LAW ” ) , which entered into force on DATE and abrogated the former DATE LAW ( see the next paragraph ) , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Every natural person or legal entity is entitled to the protection of its rights of personality ( prava osobnosti ) under the conditions provided by law .

( CARDINAL ) NORP of personality within the meaning of this LAW are the right to life , to physical and mental health , reputation , honour , dignity , name , privacy of personal and family life , liberty , etc .

( CARDINAL ) A legal entity shall have all the above - mentioned rights of personality – apart from those related to the biological character of a natural person DATE and , in particular , the right to a reputation and good name , honour , name or company name , business secrecy , entrepreneurial freedom , etc . ”

“ If a party is bound by law to enter into a contract , the other interested party may request that the contract be entered into without delay . ”

“ Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her rights of personality and the elimination of its consequences . ”

The text of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the former DATE LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , and ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL with subsequent amendments DATE “ the DATE LAW ” ) was nearly identical to the text of section CARDINAL of the current LAW , and read as follows :

“ Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her rights of personality . ”

Among NORP legal scholars there is no consensus as to which rights , apart from those enumerated in section CARDINAL of LAW , are to be considered rights of personality . It is , however , common ground that the following rights of natural persons fall into that category : the right to life , the right to physical and mental integrity ( health ) , the right to liberty , the right to reputation and honour , the right to privacy of personal and family life , the right to secrecy of letters and personal manuscripts , the right to personal identity ( in particular the rights to one ’s image , voice and name ) and the moral rights of the author . It would appear that only these rights have so far been interpreted as rights of personality by the NORP courts in the application of section CARDINAL of the former DATE LAW and section CARDINAL of the current DATE LAW . The issue whether other rights guaranteed by the LAW may , at this point , be qualified as rights of personality remains largely disputed .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije , ORG , no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ Anyone who considers that his or her right has been violated because of discrimination may seek the protection of that right in the proceedings in which that right is being decided as the main issue , or may also seek protection in special proceedings referred to in LAW . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person claiming to be a victim of discrimination under the provisions of this LAW shall be authorised to bring an action and seek :

a declaration that the defendant has violated the plaintiff ’s right to equal treatment or that the activities the defendant has undertaken or failed to undertake may directly result in the violation of the right to equal treatment ( action for declaration of discrimination ) ;

NORP the cessation of activities which violate or may violate the plaintiff ’s right to equal treatment , or to undertake activities which eliminate discrimination or its consequences ( action to desist from or eliminate discrimination ) ;

NORP compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the violation of the rights protected by this LAW ( action for damages ) ;

publication in the media of the judgment declaring the violation of the right to equal treatment , at the defendant ’s expense .

( CARDINAL ) Unless this LAW provides otherwise , the court shall decide on claims referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section by applying the provisions of LAW .

( CARDINAL ) Claims referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section may be brought together with claims for the protection of other rights to be determined in civil proceedings if all those claims are interrelated and if the same court has jurisdiction based on subject matter in respect of them , regardless of whether such claims fall to be examined in regular or special civil proceedings , except in cases of disturbance of possessions . In that case , regulations relevant to the type of dispute in question shall apply , unless otherwise provided by this LAW .

( CARDINAL ) ... ”

The relevant part of the ORG on the Implementation of the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities and ORG in ORG for DATE for ORG ( NORP o provođenju PERSON zakona o pravima nacionalnih manjina i o utrošku sredstava osiguranih u državnom proračunu PERSON za DATE . godinu za potrebe nacionalnih manjina ) , which ORG submitted to ORG on DATE , reads as follows :

“ To date , GPE has concluded CARDINAL international agreements [ concordats ] with ORG ...

The Government of GPE also concluded CARDINAL agreements on issues of common interest with churches and religious communities , and in this way has regulated relations with another CARDINAL churches and religious communities .

Churches which have regulated relations with ORG :

ORG receive regular DATE financial support ,

NORP can teach religion courses in schools , and teach religion in nurseries ,

NORP can celebrate marriage in religious form with the effects of a civil marriage .

All other religious communities have the right to provide pastoral care in medical and social - welfare institutions , prisons and penitentiaries , as well as in the armed forces . ”

The Government of GPE has to date concluded agreements on issues of common interest , as envisaged in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , with the following religious communities :

- ORG , on DATE ( Official Gazette , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ;

- ORG in Croatia , on DATE ( ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ;

- ORG in GPE and ORG in GPE , on DATE ( Official Gazette , no . CARDINAL ) ;

- the NORP ( Pentecostal ) Church in GPE ( together with the associated Church of God in GPE and ORG in GPE ) , ORG in GPE ( together with the associated DATE ORG ) and ORG in GPE ( together with the associated ORG ) , on DATE ( Official Gazette , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ;

- ORG , ORG and ORG , on DATE ( ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , amended on DATE ( Official Gazette , no . CARDINAL ) ; and

- the NORP ( Religious ) Community PERSON GPE in GPE , on DATE .

Relations with ORG are regulated by CARDINAL concordats concluded with ORG :

- the Agreement between the Holy See and GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ;

- the Agreement between the Holy See and GPE on ORG [ who are ] Members of ORG and the Police ( Official Gazette – International Agreements , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ,

- the Agreement between the Holy See and GPE in ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ,

- the Agreement between the Holy See and GPE ( Official Gazette – International Agreements , no . DATE ) .

According to the last census of DATE ORG has CARDINAL members , ORG DATE and ORG CARDINAL .


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

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” , Таганрогский городской суд ) granted the applicant 's claim for recovery of MONEY ( “ RUR ” ) which he had lent to a private company and awarded him the interest of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The applicant 's action in respect of the second defendant , a private person , was rejected .

The judgment , in its part relating to the award of interests , was quashed by ORG ( “ The Regional Court ” , ORG областной суд ) on appeal on DATE and remitted at first instance .

On DATE ORG rendered a new judgment in the applicant 's favour . The court decided that the private company was to pay the applicant RUR FAC in respect of the accrued interest . In addition the court ruled that the co - defendant , a private person , was to be held vicariously liable for the debts of the private company to the applicant in the total amount of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

The judgment was not appealed against and on DATE it came into force .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , acting upon the protest lodged by its President , quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE as well as the decision of DATE and remitted the case at first instance . In particular , the court noted that the factual findings of the first - instance court had been erroneous and in breach of the relevant procedural rules .

By judgment of DATE ORG freshly examined the case and granted the applicant 's claims in full . The court ruled that the private company was to pay the applicant FAC in respect of the principal debt and FAC in respect of the accrued interest . The court also decided that the co - defendant , the private person , was to be held vicariously liable for the entirety of the debts of the private company to the applicant in the total amount of FAC .

The judgment of DATE was upheld by ORG on appeal on DATE .

It appears that the applicant was unsuccessful in a few sets of civil litigation against various third persons who had allegedly failed to re - pay their debts . He also tried unsuccessfully to prosecute these persons .


No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+8

The applicant , a NORP citizen born in DATE , is currently resident in GPE .

In DATE he came to live in GPE with his parents , his brother and his QUANTITY sisters , who were all NORP nationals . DATE the sisters adopted NORP nationality . CARDINAL of them later left GPE for GPE . The applicant 's father died in GPE in DATE .

PERSON lived in GPE with his family in a house which they owned . After leaving school he trained as a mechanic . From DATE onwards he worked for the family business as a taxi driver .

On DATE , in GPE , he married a NORP woman who came to live with him in GPE . PERSON gave birth to a son on DATE . On an unknown date PERSON his wife in GPE . She then went back to live there . On DATE ORG ( GPE ) took formal note of the fact that PERSON had waived her right to custody of the child , who returned to GPE after his father 's release ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and lived with his paternal grandmother . Since DATE he has apparently been living with CARDINAL of his aunts in FAC .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of criminal damage and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE , and a fine of CARDINAL times MONEY ( BEF ) .

Following the seizure of QUANTITY of cannabis , the same court sentenced PERSON on DATE imprisonment and a fine of CARDINAL times BEF CARDINAL,CARDINAL for unlawful possession of drugs and conspiracy . On DATE ORG reduced the term of imprisonment to DATE . On DATE , in the course of the judicial investigation , a deputy police superintendent at ORG had drawn up the following report on the applicant :

" [ Mr C. ] is of good conduct in the district . He has notbrought himself to his neighbours ' attention through anyimmoral behaviour . His main social contacts are with personsof NORP origin . He is known as a taxi driver and works for ... company , whose registered office is in GPE ... His average DATE net salary is CARDINAL . He apparentlyhas no other source of income . He lives in the house whichhis parents own . He occupies CARDINAL room and pays no rent . ORG dependants , he was formerly married to [ R. S. ] andhad a son from that union . The above persons no longer livein GPE but in GPE . He has to pay CARDINAL per monthto his wife in maintenance . He is hard - working and gives hisemployer complete satisfaction . "

According to a questionnaire filled in by the authorities at ORG on DATE , the applicant is said to have claimed to be able to speak LANGUAGE , LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE .

PERSON was released on parole on DATE . His son , who had been living with his mother while PERSON was in prison , joined him in GPE in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

A royal order of CARDINAL DATE , which was served in DATE , required the applicant to leave GPE , on the following grounds :

" Whereas [ Mr C. ] has been found guilty of causing criminaldamage , for which he was sentenced on DATE , in ajudgment which has become final , to DATE imprisonmentand a fine of MONEY , the term of imprisonment beingsuspended for DATE ; Whereas he has been found guilty , as principal or jointprincipal , of possessing and dealing in prohibited drugs , namely QUANTITY of cannabis , aggravated by the fact thatthis offence also constituted participation in the principalor secondary activities of a criminal organisation , for whichoffences he was sentenced on DATE , in a judgmentwhich has become final , to DATE imprisonment and a fineof MONEY ; Whereas , accordingly , by his personal conduct , he hasseriously prejudiced public order ; "

In reaching the above decision the Minister of ORG had declined to follow the advice of ORG , which had suggested that PERSON should not be deported but served with a warning .

On DATE ORG on Aliens had expressed the opinion that deportation was warranted , on the following grounds in particular :

" [ Mr C. ] was married to a compatriot but is now divorced . PERSON was born of this marriage in DATE and lived for a timewith his mother in GPE . He is apparently now with her inthe GPE ... There is nothing to suggest that the serious threat posed PERSON behaviour has been removed . Were the deportation of an alien to be held to constituteinterference with the exercise of his right to respect forhis private and family life , within the meaning of LAW ( article CARDINAL) , such interference would belegitimate in the present case , being in accordance with thelaw and , in the applicant 's case , in view of the seriousnessof the threat posed by his presence in GPE , necessary inthe interests of public safety and the prevention of disorderand crime . "

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked the ORG d'Etat to quash the deportation order , but on DATE the ORG d'Etat dismissed this application on the following grounds :

" The applicant 's first ground of appeal is that there hasbeen a breach of the Minister of ORG 's circular ofCARDINAL DATE and LAW ( article CARDINAL),in that the Minister and ORG on Aliens failedto take account of the fact that he had been living DATE , that his mother and sisters also livedthere , and that he no longer had any links with GPE , whose language he did not speak .

The Minister undertook in his circular not to deport an alienwho had been settled in the country for CARDINAL yearsunless he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment offive DATE or more . He reserved the power to deport thealien in certain circumstances . The Minister examined thecircumstances in this case and had valid grounds to concludethat , in view of the seriousness of the facts , the applicantshould be deported , particularly in the light of the familycircumstances described by ORG on Aliens . PERSON doing , he was not in breach of either his own circular orArticle CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL) .

In his second ground of appeal , the applicant alleges thebreach of LAW , of the Minister PERSON 's circular of CARDINAL DATE , of section CARDINAL of theAct of DATE on the entry , residence , settlementand expulsion of aliens and of NORP CARDINAL and CARDINAL of theConvention for ORG ( article CARDINAL , article DATE ) , in that the Minister unreasonablydeclined to follow the advice of his department not to deportthe applicant .

The Minister 's attention was drawn to the arguments of ORG and ORG on Aliens . He did notexceed his powers in deciding that , in view of theseriousness of the facts , the applicant should be deported onthe ground that the protection of public order had to prevailover his personal and family interests . "

On DATE the ORG d'Etat had declared inadmissible an application by the applicant for a stay of execution , on the ground that he had failed to appear in court .

After his release on parole on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) PERSON had DATE in which to leave GPE ; this time - limit was later extended to DATE . He complied with the order on an unknown date .

The Act of DATE " on the entry , residence , settlement and expulsion of aliens " , which has since been amended several times , governs the administrative status of aliens . Under LAW , second paragraph , an alien who has been granted a settlement permit may be deported " where he has seriously prejudiced public order or national security " . Before such a deportation the Minister of ORG must seek the opinion of ORG on Aliens , which is composed of a judge , a lawyer and a member of an association for the protection of aliens ' interests . PERSON orders are signed by the King and are subject to judicial review by the PERSON d'Etat ( section CARDINAL ) .