Violation of P1-1;Inadmissible under Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in Alba Iulia .

In connection with the restructuring of the armed forces , which had begun in DATE , a number of legislative measures were passed with a view to encouraging professional soldiers to apply for reassignment to the reserve force and thereby to take early retirement .

In addition to their retirement pension , section CARDINAL of Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( “ Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) granted those concerned a tax - free “ income replacement allowance ” calculated in relation to their gross DATE pay . Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) , they were additionally entitled to a tax - free “ maintenance allowance ” , also calculated in relation to their gross DATE pay . The method of calculating those allowances was amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Ordinance no . CARDINAL ” ) , which provided that the net DATE pay would be used as the basis of calculation .

At their request , the applicants were assigned to the reserve force and thereby took early retirement , on DATE for the first and third , and on DATE for the second , with entitlements to the above - mentioned pension and allowances . However , when those sums were paid out , ORG deducted income tax , calculated in accordance with Ordinance no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning income tax ( “ Ordinance no . CARDINAL ” ) , thereby depriving the first applicant of CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) , the second of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the third of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

In an action against ORG , the applicants claimed the reimbursement of those sums , which they alleged had been wrongfully deducted , on the ground that their allowances were exempt from tax under Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON no . ORG . ORG disputed their claim , contending that the taxation in question was consistent with Ordinance no . ORG .

In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicants’ action and ordered the Ministry to reimburse the amounts deducted for tax . The court considered that on the date of their retirement , that is to say some time before the entry into force of Ordinance no . CARDINAL , the applicants had acquired an entitlement to tax - free allowances calculated in relation to their gross DATE pay . Moreover , the court observed that section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL provided that maintenance allowances were likewise tax exempt .

ORG appealed , arguing that the tax exemption provision in respect of the income replacement allowance , under section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , had been expressly repealed by section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which had also implicitly abolished the exemption in respect of maintenance allowances under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG .

In a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the merits of the judgment at first instance on the following grounds :

“ Even assuming , purely for the sake of argument , that the provisions of section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . DATE had been repealed , those of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE which also provide for tax exemption and for the calculation [ of the allowance ] in relation to gross DATE pay DATE would remain as a legal basis . ORG contends that the provision in question was implicitly repealed , but that view has not been substantiated , because Ordinance no . ORG post - dates PERSON no . ORG and if the legislature had wished to repeal the section in question , nothing would have prevented it from making express provision to that effect , as was the case for other legislative instruments referred to in section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL . ... In any event , a Government Ordinance , being of secondary legislative importance in relation to statute law , can not repeal a statute .

In addition , the ORG wrongly contends that Ordinance no . ORG constitutes a lex specialis in relation to Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and to Law no . CARDINAL . In actual fact , Ordinance no . ORG is the framework instrument concerning taxation , and , in relation to the other CARDINAL instruments mentioned above , which grant tax relief to a specific category of employees , it lays down the ordinary rules from which the special provisions of those instruments derogate .

Moreover , section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL states that income replacement allowances and maintenance allowances , such as those concerned in the present case , are exempt from income tax , thus indicating the legislature ’s intention that they should not be taxable .

The provisions of Ordinance no . CARDINAL to the effect that the allowance is calculated in relation to net pay do not apply in the case of the applicants , who retired before the entry into force of the LAW , which does not have retrospective effect ... The possibility of discrimination [ between servicemen who retired after the entry into force of Ordinance no . CARDINAL , whose allowances were calculated in relation to net pay , and those who retired before that date , who were entitled to allowances based on gross pay ] is not left to the discretion of the employer or of the courts , but is a matter for the legislature , which should have taken this into account and found an appropriate solution in the course of the legislative process , by means of precise and specific regulatory provisions . Accordingly , neither an employer nor a court can substitute itself for the legislature in harmonising the various provisions which have come into force at different times but which concern situations that are similar , although they arose , changed or ceased to exist under different statutes . ”

NORP The court also considered that the CARDINAL allowances in issue could not be characterised as a “ salary ” or “ income treated as a salary ” for the purposes of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL , especially as they were not included among the forms of taxable income referred to in section CARDINAL of that GPE .

Lastly , the court looked at the practice of other courts in similar disputes and found that it supported the claims of the former servicemen .

As the judgment of DATE had become res judicata and had been endorsed with a writ of execution , the applicants received , on an unspecified date , the amounts they had claimed .

On DATE the Procurator - General of GPE applied to ORG to have the DATE judgment of ORG and DATE decision of the ORG quashed .

He considered that in construing domestic law the CARDINAL courts had committed serious errors of law which had vitiated the settlement of the dispute . He argued that section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL had superseded the provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and LAW CARDINAL of PERSON no . ORG , and added that under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Ordinance no . ORG the allowances and other entitlements of military personnel were treated as salaries and were therefore liable to the taxation provided for in that Ordinance .

The applicants sought the dismissal of the Procurator - General ’s application to have the judgments quashed , disputing his arguments that the above - mentioned provisions had been superseded and that the allowances were treated as salaries . They argued that , in any event , even assuming that the allowances could have been treated as salaries , they should not have been liable to tax , since section CARDINAL ( f ) of Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL exempted from tax any allowances that were calculated in relation to net DATE pay . Moreover , under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of that GPE , net earnings were not defined as gross earnings minus tax but as gross earnings minus social - insurance contributions . Accordingly , they considered that ORG had wrongly deducted tax from their allowances .

In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the Procurator - General ’s application , quashed the impugned judgments and ordered the reimbursement of the sums that ORG had paid to the applicants on the basis of those judgments . The relevant passage of the decision provided :

“ Whilst section CARDINAL of Law no . ORG provides that , upon their reassignment to the reserve force , servicemen benefit from a tax - free maintenance allowance , calculated in relation to their gross DATE pay , that provision must be read in the light of the provisions of section CARDINAL of Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL and of ORG [ no . DATE – “ Order no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ] , which , whilst providing that income from maintenance allowances is exempt from tax , specify which forms of income are included in that category and exclude any salaries or income treated as such .

Considering that Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL pertains precisely to salaries and entitlements relating to the status of ORG employee , it is clear that the grant of a maintenance allowance under LAW of the above - mentioned PERSON stems from employee status , and that such allowances are accordingly liable to tax , in accordance with Ordinance no . ORG .

That conclusion is confirmed by Government Order no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL which , referring to LAW no . CARDINAL , specifies what forms of income are exempt from tax , among them maintenance allowances . It can be seen from the enumeration in that provision that the maintenance allowances contemplated in Ordinance no . CARDINAL are confined to those granted for special purposes , such as maintenance allowances for soldiers’ spouses , welfare benefits , emergency relief granted by the ORG or local councils in cases of hardship , funeral grants , etc .

The above - mentioned provision makes no reference to maintenance allowances paid to servicemen upon their reassignment to the reserve force and calculated in relation to their gross DATE pay .

Consequently , since such allowances are comparable to a salary and are calculated on the basis of gross DATE pay , they are taxable like any gross income .

In addition , section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . ORG expressly provides that any provision contrary to that Ordinance is superseded , thereby confirming once again that the legislature ’s intention was to render such income taxable .

As regards the income replacement allowances granted to the applicants under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , being tax - exempt and likewise calculated in relation to gross DATE pay , it should be noted that section DATE of Ordinance no . CARDINAL expressly superseded that provision as regards the tax exemption of such income . Accordingly , the applicants are also liable for tax on such income .

Furthermore , it is to be observed that section CARDINAL ( f ) of Ordinance no . ORG exempts from income tax only those income replacement allowances and maintenance allowances that are calculated in relation to net DATE pay , whereas the allowances granted to the applicants were calculated in relation to their gross DATE pay . It follows that this income was also taxable . ”

As the authorities failed to bring any action for the enforcement of the judgment of ORG , the applicants have not , to date , reimbursed the disputed amounts .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provided :

“ The Procurator - General may , of his own motion or on an application by the Minister of ORG , apply to ORG for any final judicial decision to be quashed on any of the following grounds :

NORP that the court in question has exceeded its jurisdiction ;

NORP that the decision concerned by the application has seriously breached the law , leading to erroneous findings on the merits of the case , or that the decision is ill - founded . ”

This Article was repealed by Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE .

“ During the restructuring of the armed forces , officers , non - commissioned officers and instructors [ having completed DATE of service ] may request to be reassigned to the reserve force , before reaching the statutory age - limit , with a military pension entitlement ... ”

“ Military personnel reassigned to the reserve force who are entitled to a military pension ... shall receive , in return for their service in the armed forces , the compensation provided for in the statutory provisions on remuneration of military personnel . Moreover , for DATE of service until DATE , they shall be entitled to a tax - free income replacement allowance of which the amount shall be double that of their last gross DATE pay . ”

“ Military personnel having completed DATE of service may request to be reassigned to the reserve force or may be assigned thereto automatically ... and shall receive a tax - free income replacement allowance , calculated on the basis of their length of service and their last gross DATE pay . ”

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL provides :

“ Military personnel reassigned to the reserve force who are entitled to a military pension , ... shall receive a tax - free maintenance allowance calculated according to their length of service ... and their last gross DATE pay ...

Military personnel reassigned to the reserve force , with a military pension entitlement , before reaching the statutory age - limit , shall also receive , for DATE of service until DATE , a tax - free maintenance allowance of which the amount shall be double that of their last gross DATE pay .

The provisions of the second paragraph shall not apply to military personnel receiving the income replacement allowance provided for by Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ”

“ The category of taxable income shall consist of income from self - employment , rent from property , salaries , interest , dividends and other income . ”

“ The following shall not be considered taxable income and shall not be liable to taxation :

( a ) maintenance allowances , grants and other forms of benefit for special purposes , being paid from the ORG budget , the social insurance fund , special funds , local councils , other public funds or third - party sources ... ”

“ The following shall be considered tax - free income : ... sums constituting income replacement allowances calculated on the basis of net DATE pay and granted to military personnel assigned to the reserve force in connection with the restructuring of the armed forces , and maintenance allowances calculated on the basis of net DATE pay and granted to military personnel assigned to the reserve force with or without a pension entitlement ” .

“ A salary shall be defined as any income in money or in kind received by an individual who pursues an activity under a contract of employment , regardless of the term of the contract , the designation given to the income or the means of payment ... ”

“ The following shall be treated as salaries for tax purposes : DATE pay , allowances , bonuses , subsidies and other statutory entitlements of armed - forces personnel . ”

“ The net amount of taxable salaries shall be calculated by subtracting the following from the gross amount ... :

( a ) statutory contributions to supplementary pension , unemployment benefit and medical insurance funds ;

( b ) a PERCENT deduction in respect of professional expenses .... ”

“ The present Ordinance , upon its entry into force , shall supersede ... the provisions on tax exemption in respect of the income replacement allowances provided for in section CARDINAL and section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Ordinance no . DATE ... , together with any other provisions that may be incompatible . ”

The Order in question provides :

“ Tax - free income [ for the purposes of LAW no . ORG ] shall include : ... maintenance allowances for soldiers’ spouses , welfare benefits , emergency relief granted by the ORG or local councils in cases of hardship , unemployment benefit , professional reintegration allowances , funeral grants , humanitarian , medical or social relief ... ”

NORP The relevant provisions read as follows :

“ The amount of the income replacement allowance provided for in sections CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... and that of the maintenance allowance provided for in DATE and section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL shall be calculated on the basis of net DATE pay . ”

“ The amount of the net DATE pay shall be calculated by subtracting the statutory DATE tax from the amount of the gross DATE pay in respect of DATE of service .

The amount of the DATE tax shall be calculated as provided in Ordinance no . ORG on income tax ” .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national of NORP origin , who lives in GPE ( GPE ) . He is represented before the ORG by Mr H. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE ( GPE ) .

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

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) instituted preliminary investigation proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other suspects on suspicion of large - scale fraud and breach of trust in the context of investments in a real estate fund . They were suspected of having sold so called “ partial house ownership certificates ” to CARDINAL investors with the assurance that their value was secured by real property , but in fact they had sold the real property in DATE and misappropriated the proceeds of the sale .

As of DATE the investigating judge was relieved of all other business and CARDINAL junior judges completing their training period ( Richteramtsanwärter ) were assigned to assist him . In DATE CARDINAL of them took over as the new investigating judge .

During the preliminary investigations , which concerned a network of CARDINAL firms , CARDINAL bank accounts were examined and CARDINAL volumes of documents were seized and studied . A special computer programme was designed in order to cope with the large volume of data . Most of the time was consumed by the preparation of an expert opinion , whereby the team of accounting experts first had to clear the balance sheets of the companies , most of which were intertwined . A change in the team of experts became necessary in DATE due to the potential bias of some of its members . The team was restructured again in DATE . In DATE the experts delivered their opinion .

In DATE the applicant , who had his place of residence in GPE since DATE , obtained NORP citizenship .

In DATE the NORP authorities issued an international arrest warrant against the applicant . It appears that this warrant is still valid .

In DATE the NORP authorities requested the NORP authorities to take over the criminal proceedings against the applicant .

In DATE ORG opened criminal proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant and informed that he had discontinued the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE , even before the Investigating Judge formally closed the preliminary investigations , ORG ) preferred a bill of indictment ( PERSON ) of CARDINAL pages against the applicant and CARDINAL of his co - accused . However , since the applicant had no residence in GPE , the indictment could not be served on him .

On DATE ORG in GPE ( GPE ) refused to open criminal proceedings against the applicant as the prosecution had become time - barred ( PERSON ) in GPE .

Meanwhile , the co - accused had been convicted by the NORP courts and had been sentenced to prison sentences from DATE . However , the proceedings against the applicant are still pending due to the impossibility of serving the bill of indictment on the applicant .


Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible)

ORG Mr PERSON is a NORP national and works as a road haulier .

On DATE the public prosecutor at Valence ( PERSON ) applied to a local investigating judge for an investigation to be opened into , inter alia , the importing , exporting and transporting of drugs by a person or persons unknown . The police had just discovered an international organisation specialising in drug trafficking between LOC and LOC . The organisation had been active DATE and was made up of NORP suppliers and NORP carriers , masterminded by NORP nationals .

ORG In DATE the investigating judge charged Mr PERSON and CARDINAL others with drug offences .

ORG On DATE the NORP police arrested PERSON in GPE while he was carrying QUANTITY of hashish in his lorry ; the investigating judge at Valence was informed of the arrest on DATE .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment , but on appeal ORG reduced the sentence to DATE .

ORG On DATE Mr Cardot was pardoned . He was not released , however , as an international warrant for his arrest had been issued by the investigating judge at Valence on DATE , and on DATE ORG had applied to the NORP authorities for his extradition . On DATE Mr Cardot had been served with a further warrant for his arrest , issued by the same judge , on suspicion of inciting an attempt to import QUANTITY of hashish and attempting to import QUANTITY ; the commission of the first offence had been frustrated only by a circumstance beyond his control ( the arrest of the principal offender in GPE ) , while commission of the second had been prevented by the applicant ’s arrest in GPE .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of extradition for the purposes of proceedings relating to participation in transporting drugs on CARDINAL occasions in DATE . On DATE ORG decided to extradite PERSON , who was handed over to the NORP authorities on DATE .

ORG In an order of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge committed PERSON , who was still in GPE , and his co - defendants for trial at ORG .

The applicant was charged , firstly , with having , in concert with his co - defendants , organised an association or a conspiracy to import and export drugs and of having imported and transported drugs and , secondly , of having aided and abetted the offences with which the other defendants were charged and of having attempted to import , export and transport hashish on CARDINAL specific occasions .

ORG The court gave judgment on DATE .

It decided to sever the proceedings against Mr Cardot on account of his being in custody in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

CARDINAL of the defendants ( PERSON ) was acquitted on the ground that there was insufficient evidence , and CARDINAL others were given either immediate custodial sentences ( Mr PERSON DATE , Mr PERSON DATE , and Mr PERSON DATE ) or suspended sentences ( PERSON DATE , Mr PERSON DATE , and PERSON DATE ) .

As to the CARDINAL co - defendants who had not appeared , the court sentenced them in absentia to periods of imprisonment ranging from DATE .

The judgment contained the following passages concerning Mr Cardot :

" It appears from the preliminary investigation and the hearing that in DATE or DATE , on ORG instructions , a convoy of CARDINAL lorries driven by , among others , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and a driver from PERSON firm carried chemicals and pharmaceuticals to GPE , returning via GPE .

DATE after the arrival of ORG lorry at the PERSON depot at ORG ) , PERSON and PERSON dismantled the petrol tank and took out a number of metal boxes ... containing QUANTITY of hashish ...

At all events , before the petrol tank was dismantled , ORG had indicated to PERSON that it contained hashish , whereas PERSON was confronted with a fait accompli .

ORG subsequently asked PERSON and PERSON , who agreed , to bring back a quantity of hashish when carrying car - wheel rims from GPE ...

When PERSON had arranged the rendez - vous , PERSON and PERSON set off together during DATE ...

Cardot gave PERSON FRF DATE , which did not even cover his expenses , while PERSON received ORG CARDINAL only after another journey to GPE .

For the petrol tanks fitted by the ORG , ORG went to CARDINAL different boilermakers so as not to arouse suspicion ...

According to PERSON and PERSON , the tanks measured MONEY QUANTITY and their components were charged to the Société Transpyrénées [ Transpyrenean Company ] , in other words paid by ORG record of the hearing ) .

On returning from a trip to GPE , ORG suggested to ORG that he should engage in smuggling ...

At DATE ... PERSON saw PERSON again , who told him that a petrol tank was ready .

ORG , who went to GPE before PERSON , had arranged to meet him in the car park of ORG .

After his vehicle had been immobilised ... , PERSON , acting on ORG instructions , got in touch again with an NORP , who escorted him to a warehouse in the centre of the working - class district of GPE , where , at TIME , he watched CARDINAL other NORP load CARDINAL rectangular metal boxes into the tank ...

On ORG instructions and accompanied by him , he took an empty lorry to GPE , where ORG made a telephone call from the FAC car park on the outskirts of GPE .

Guided by PERSON in the car which ORG had got into ... , PERSON left his trailer at the ORG ’s disposal outside a warehouse ...

On his return to Charmes , still accompanied by ORG , he was given ORG CARDINAL by Cardot for transporting QUANTITY of hashish .

At about the same time , likewise on ORG instructions , PERSON went to GPE in his lorry in order to bring back a quantity of hashish ...

According to ORG ’s disclosures at the hearing , ORG , PERSON and PERSON also went to GPE , each with specially adapted petrol tanks , whereas his own was not adapted until he reached GPE .

ORG travelled via GPE to GPE , where he rang a telephone number he had been given by ORG in order to contact PERSON , known as ‘ Tony’ , who took delivery from him .

After the petrol tank had been cut out with a chain - saw in a warehouse , ORG unloaded the tins containing the hashish , came back to GPE and subsequently received from ORG payments of ORG , ORG CARDINAL and FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL on account , i.e. FRF CARDINAL in all for the CARDINAL journeys , this CARDINAL and the one that had been made to GPE in DATE .

At ORG instigation , PERSON returned to GPE by air on DATE in order to collect his lorry , which he had left in GPE on DATE and which ORG had said was now ‘ ready’ ...

From the statements of the various defendants and persons charged and inquiries made in GPE it appears that PERSON financed the operation and was the person for whom the consignments of drugs carried by the hauliers were ultimately intended .

PERSON , an important member of the organisation , took delivery in GPE in DATE of the drugs brought from GPE by PERSON and PERSON .

Esser got ORG involved in smuggling hashish ...

ORG went to Valence several times in DATE to make specially adapted petrol tanks together with PERSON and ORG .

In sum , as regards the transport of drugs , it has been established that :

In DATE PERSON and PERSON took part in importing QUANTITY of hashish from GPE and exporting it .

In DATE Cardot , PERSON and PERSON took part in importing QUANTITY of hashish from GPE and exporting it to GPE .

In DATE ORG and PERSON took part in importing QUANTITY of hashish from GPE and exporting it to GPE .

In DATE or DATE Cardot incited an attempt to import QUANTITY of hashish from GPE .

In DATE Cardot attempted to import and export QUANTITY of hashish .

The offence of importing prohibited goods - in this instance QUANTITY of morphine , QUANTITY of heroin and QUANTITY of hashish , with a total value of MONEY - , which is punishable under ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , has been made out .

The foregoing offence is imputable to PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , PERSON , ORG , ORG and ORG severally , the proceedings against Cardot having , however , been severed .

Five of those convicted appealed and on CARDINAL DATE ORG of Appeal gave judgment . It acquitted CARDINAL of them ( Mr PERSON and PERSON ) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence , and reduced the prison sentences of the CARDINAL others ( PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON ) by DATE .

In its judgment the court indicated that they had all claimed to have received their instructions from Mr Cardot , who was repeatedly named in the text . The judgment included the following references :

It is apparent from the case file and the oral proceedings that in DATE PERSON put PERSON in touch with the ORG , known as PERSON , who proposed to PERSON - who was then in the business of road haulage to LOC - that he should carry hashish against payment of MONEY per tonne . PERSON accepted this proposal , and in DATE or DATE , on ORG instructions , a convoy of CARDINAL lorries driven by , among others , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and a driver from PERSON firm carried chemicals and pharmaceuticals to GPE , returning via GPE .

DATE after the arrival of ORG lorry at the PERSON depot at ORG ) , PERSON and PERSON dismantled the petrol tank ...

ORG subsequently asked PERSON and PERSON , who agreed , to bring back a quantity of hashish when carrying car - wheel rims from GPE .

When PERSON had arranged the rendez - vous , PERSON and PERSON set off together ...

On returning from a trip to GPE , ORG suggested to ORG that he should engage in smuggling .

After his vehicle had been immobilised ... , PERSON , acting on ORG instructions , got in touch again with an NORP ...

On ORG instructions and accompanied by him , he took an empty lorry to GPE ...

PERSON admitted at the hearing that ... he had driven a consignment of hashish from ORG to GPE that had just been brought from GPE by PERSON .

At ORG instigation , he returned to GPE by air on DATE in order to collect his lorry , which ORG had said was now ‘ ready’ .

Mr Cardot was summoned to appear before ORG on DATE .

On DATE , on an application by the prosecution , the court ordered that further inquiries should be made into the facts and that the defendant should remain in custody . On an appeal against the latter decision , ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision on DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG appointed an investigating judge to carry out the further inquiries .

ORG The judge questioned Mr Cardot on DATE and DATE .

ORG He also confronted Mr Cardot with the CARDINAL main witnesses : PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON on CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On each occasion , in the presence of PERSON and his lawyer , the investigating judge read out the statements that the witnesses had made to the police on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON confirmed them .

The applicant disputed certain points in Mr PERSON ’s and Mr PERSON ’s statements ; Mr ORG had retracted certain things he had said to the police and to the courts . Mr PERSON also questioned the witnesses through his lawyer . He applied successfully for the record of his confrontation with Mr PERSON to be amended and had further questions put to him .

ORG The trial at ORG opened on DATE . The prosecution did not deem it necessary to call as witnesses the CARDINAL people with whom Mr Cardot had been confronted , and the accused himself did not make any written application for evidence to be heard from them .

The court adjourned the case to DATE so that the national head office of the ORG investigations branch could be represented as a civil party .

ORG During the hearing on DATE Mr Cardot gave an account of himself in relation to the charges against him . He again challenged the statements that his former co - defendants had made to the police , pointing out that they had varied , but he did not apply for the persons concerned to be called .

ORG On DATE the court sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . He was found guilty as charged ; the court did not take into account the offences of which he had been convicted by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The judgment referred to the statements of the former co - defendants :

... PERSON stated that ORG had used the time to have his trailer equipped with a specially adapted petrol tank made in GPE .

It appeared from ORG ’s statements that ORG had had contacts concerning the transport of smuggled goods - Cardot did not deny this but claimed that the goods in question were carpets - , that when he ( PERSON ) drove his lorry with its specially adapted petrol tanks to GPE , ORG had told him that he could be paid ORG CARDINAL per journey , that he had indeed heard conversations between ORG and a Dutchman on the subject of drugs ...

For his part , PERSON said that during his stay in GPE , at that time , ORG suggested to him that he should have his lorry loaded with hashish to take back to GPE , and PERSON stated that on returning from GPE Cardot brought round QUANTITY of drugs , which had been collected by another lorry .

ORG said that the CARDINAL petrol tanks had been made for ORG ...

While returning to GPE on or CARDINAL DATE Cardot met PERSON in GPE ; the latter said during the further inquiries into the facts that PERSON had told him on that occasion that his lorry was carrying hashish ; he even told PERSON that he had brought back hashish on this journey .

PERSON stated categorically that on his return to GPE QUANTITY of hashish remained from ORG ’s consignment ; ...

ORG and PERSON stated categorically that PERSON was behind the transporting of hashish from GPE ; PERSON and PERSON said that ORG had organised the journey and given all the necessary instructions ; ...

But in his original statements PERSON had said that TIME days after this journey to FAC had paid him ORG CARDINAL in cash in GPE ...

Cardot denied any involvement in the journey allegedly made to GPE by ORG and himself together with PERSON ... ; PERSON and PERSON , however , had said that all CARDINAL of them had stopped at the FAC in GPE before PERSON continued his journey to GPE ; the PERSON had joined them ; PERSON had said that this Dutchman had given Cardot a bag containing money ; ORG had given him CARDINAL bundles each containing FRF CARDINAL in CARDINAL notes and he had given CARDINAL of these bundles of notes to PERSON .

Mr Cardot , the civil party and the prosecution appealed , and ORG gave judgment on DATE . It upheld the lower court ’s judgment as regards Mr Cardot ’s guilt and increased the sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The part of its judgment headed " The facts " contained the following :

" It appears from the police inquiries , from the judicial investigation and from the partly confirming judgment of this ORG on DATE [ ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ] that the facts are established as follows :

... The judicial investigation established that [ the traffickers ] were divided into CARDINAL groups : ... and , lastly , the carriers , consisting of PERSON , PERSON and ORG , who subsequently formally implicated PERSON , whom they described as the intermediary between the NORP and themselves .

For his part , ORG stated that on this occasion ORG introduced him to CARDINAL Dutchmen , ‘ Tony’ and ‘ GPE ...

PERSON and PERSON ... stated that they made this journey at ORG request in order to bring back a consignment of hashish . ... PERSON stated that ORG helped to load the lorry ...

According to [ ORG ’s mistress ] , who confirmed PERSON ’s and PERSON statements , ORG helped PERSON and GPE to make specially adapted petrol tanks , but ORG denied this . ...

Furthermore , during the trial in this ORG on DATE PERSON stated ... that on that journey he had driven a consignment of hashish from Valence to GPE that had just been brought from GPE by PERSON . He also stated that after meeting FAC in GPE he took his vehicle to GPE and came back to GPE , subsequently returning to GPE by air at ORG instigation on DATE in order to collect his lorry , which ORG had told him was ‘ ready’ . ...

The various NORP lorry drivers involved in this trafficking , in particular PERSON , PERSON and ORG , who were convicted by this ORG on DATE , all stated that they had received their instructions from PERSON . ... "

ORG At the hearing of the appeal the prosecution had considered " the facts ... completely established by the evidence in the file and in the concordant statements made by PERSON , ORG and PERSON during the judicial investigation and at the hearing in ORG which led to their conviction " .

Mr Cardot had challenged all the prosecution evidence . In particular , he had asserted that " PERSON ’s and PERSON ’s statements [ were ] untrue and malicious and ha[d ] no other purpose than to minimise their own responsibility " and that " ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE [ could not ] be used in evidence against him " . He had not , however , made any application for witnesses to be called .

Mr Cardot appealed on points of law . CARDINAL of his CARDINAL grounds of appeal was based on failure to comply with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , lack of reasons , absence of any legal basis and a breach of the rights of the defence .

He criticised ORG for having

" found [ him ] guilty of the charges against him by reference to the terms of a judgment delivered on DATE by ORG in a case brought by the public prosecutor ’s office against other defendants , and to the hearing which [ had ] preceded that judgment .

He ended this ground of appeal as follows :

" It follows in reality that the appellant was tried on the basis not of the evidence uncovered by the investigation or by the hearing which preceded his conviction but of evidence from an earlier decision , to which he was not a party , and of a hearing during which he had not been able to put forward his defence .

The reference thus made in the judgment of ORG to the contents of an earlier decision and , above all , to the hearing which preceded that decision to which the appellant was not a party manifestly amounts to a violation of the rights of the defence .

ORG dismissed the appeal on CARDINAL DATE . As regards the ground of appeal in question , it said :

" It appears from the impugned judgment of ORG and from the lower court ’s judgment , whose reasoning ORG adopted to the extent that it was not inconsistent , and from the case file that ORG , a road haulier , took part in substantial smuggling of hashish between GPE and the GPE , in particular by organising , preparing and carrying out the transport of the drug as well as the manufacture and fitting in GPE of hidden compartments on lorries .

In order to found its belief as to the importance of ORG role in organising the smuggling , ORG referred to the findings of another judgment it had given on DATE , in relation to proceedings against all the other members of the criminal organisation and from which ORG case had been severed , on the direction of the court of first instance , because he was in custody in GPE for separate offences .

As copies of that judgment of ORG and of the judgment it upheld have been added to the case file , ORG is able to satisfy itself that , in holding as it did , ORG in no way infringed the rights of the defence .

The courts have unfettered discretion to assess the weight of the various pieces of evidence , provided that , as in the instant case , this evidence was adduced in adversarial proceedings ; it is accordingly wholly permissible to file documents from other proceedings .

It follows that this ground of appeal must be rejected . "

ORG Before ORG and the applicant mentioned or relied on several provisions of LAW . The main ones were the following :

" Unless otherwise provided by statute , any type of evidence shall be admissible to substantiate a criminal charge , and the court shall reach its decision on the basis of being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt ( intime conviction ) .

The court may only base its decision on evidence which has been adduced during the trial and discussed before it inter partes . "

" Anyone called to be heard as a witness shall be required to appear , to take the oath and to give evidence . "

" A witness who fails to appear or who refuses either to take the oath or to give evidence may , on an application by the public prosecutor , be punished by the court as provided for in LAW . "

" If a witness fails to appear and has not put forward any excuse recognised as being valid and legitimate , the court may , on an application by the public prosecutor or of its own motion , order the witness to be brought before it immediately by the police in order to be examined or adjourn the case . "

" With the court ’s leave , evidence may also be given by persons suggested by the parties and who are present at the beginning of the trial but have not been formally summoned . "

" Witnesses shall be heard only if the court [ of appeal ] so orders . "

" Pleadings shall contain the grounds of appeal to ORG and shall refer to the statutory provisions which it is claimed have been disregarded . "


The applicants , GPE . PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by GPE . PERSON and PERSON Derin , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the first applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation , namely ORG ( “ the NORP ” ) and was subsequently placed in detention on remand .

ORG at ORG initiated criminal proceedings against him and CARDINAL others . He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under LAW of LAW and LAW no . ORG .

On DATE the trial commenced before ORG against CARDINAL persons , including the first applicant .

On DATE police officers from ORG apprehended the second applicant . On DATE ORG at ORG filed an indictment charging him with membership of an illegal organisation .

On DATE the proceedings against the second applicant , together with CARDINAL others , commenced before ORG .

On DATE the court joined the second applicant ’s case to the first applicant ’s case pending before a different chamber of the court .

On DATE CARDINAL other cases were joined to the applicants’ proceedings .

On DATE the court acquitted the first applicant on account of lack of evidence . Moreover , it convicted the second applicant and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

While the case was pending at the appeal stage , on DATE , after the promulgation of PERSON no . CARDINAL , which abolished ORG , the case - file was transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG for procedural reasons .

The first hearing before ORG took place on DATE . The court took the statements of some of the accused concerning ORG decision to quash the judgment of DATE .

At the hearing of DATE and during the following QUANTITY hearings the other accused submitted their comments on the decision of ORG . According to the minutes , when some of the accused wanted to read out loud their written defence statements the court informed them that the examination of the merits would be carried out once the procedural stage was completed .

On DATE the LAW was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of ORG were replaced by civilian judges .

At the hearing of DATE the civilian judge who had been appointed to replace the military judge sat as a member of the trial court for the first time . DATE and DATE the ORG , which was composed of CARDINAL civilian judges , held QUANTITY hearings .

At the sixteenth hearing held on DATE , the number of accused before the court was DATE . The court , composed of CARDINAL civilian judges , found the applicants guilty as charged . It sentenced the first applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and the second applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment . The applicants appealed .

On DATE the court gave an additional decision in which it suspended the proceedings in respect of the first applicant and CARDINAL others , in accordance with PERSON no . DATE on conditional release , the suspension of proceedings or the execution of sentences in respect of crimes committed before DATE .

On DATE ORG decided that the criminal proceedings against the first applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time - limit under LAW of LAW had expired . It further decided to uphold the decision of ORG in respect of the second applicant , endorsing the first instance court ’s assessment of the evidence and its reasons for rejecting his defence .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . MONEY , § DATE ... ) .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . ORG 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 lived with his wife and DATE son in the goldmining settlement “ LOC ” of LOC ( NORP ) , the region in GPE of GPE .

In DATE the ORG decided to close down a number of industrial settlements in Chukotka , including “ NORP ” . On DATE the Government issued the Decree No . CARDINAL “ On ORG to be Liquidated in the GPE ” . According to the conditions of the closure programme the inhabitants were entitled to replacement housing and compensation of removal expenses . In the alternative , they could apply for housing subsidies . The applicant was entitled to free shipment of QUANTITY of his household possessions .

On DATE the heating , electricity and water supply in part of “ NORP ” were cut off . At that time , ORG offered the applicant to be relocated to the settlement NORP Shmidta , while the containers with the household belongings were to be shipped later by land after DATE trails were opened . The applicant refused to leave on the grounds that he could not leave the container with his household possessions behind for fear of looting . As an alternative , the applicant was offered to send his son to the boarding school in GPE , should the applicant and his wife decide to wait in “ LOC ” , for the shipment , which the applicant also declined .

The applicant and his family stayed in “ LOC ” for DATE during which they had to stay at other people ’s homes whose flats still had heating .

On DATE the applicant and his family with their belongings were relocated to NORP Shmidta . According to the ORG , the applicant ’s family was given temporary dwelling at the address CARDINAL FAC , apt . CARDINAL . The applicant denies having stayed at these LOC , but it appears that correspondence sent to this address reached him . His own letters of the relevant period indicated his address as CARDINAL FAC , NORP Shmidta .

Subsequently the applicant was offered to temporarily move with his family into a room in a former military hospital , because it allegedly had a better functioning heating system , but he refused because it would be necessary to share common sanitary facilities there .

On DATE ORG advised the applicant that his relocation allowance of MONEY ( ORG ) had been deposited at the cashier ’s office of the municipal communal enterprise and that it would become payable upon his relocation . He was also advised that he could request an advance payment .

On DATE the applicant filed an application for housing subsidies or a replacement dwelling in the central regions of GPE .

On DATE the applicant was allotted a CARDINAL - room flat in PERSON , a town in GPE , and he was due for relocation . However , due to an error it turned out that this flat was not available .

On DATE the applicant was allocated a CARDINAL - room flat in GPE at the address CARDINAL FAC , apt . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was allotted another CARDINAL - room flat in PERSON and he accepted it . He and his family have been living there since .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against ORG . He argued that he had been unlawfully deprived of his home and claimed replacement housing or housing subsidies , as well as non - pecuniary damages .

At the preparatory stage of proceedings the applicant requested the court to obtain a number of official documents for the case file . On DATE the court ordered the applicant to provide certain evidence for the file by DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the court sent the applicant a reminder thereof . On DATE the applicant submitted his comments .

On DATE the ORG examined the case and dismissed the applicant ’s claim having found that the applicant had already received the replacement housing . In so far as he claimed damages allegedly caused in the period before the housing was granted , the court found that the applicant had had temporary housing in NORP Shmidta and provided no details , such as dates when he was deprived of any housing at all , to substantiate his allegations .

The applicant did not attend the proceedings because he had already left for PERSON , and the judgment was posted to him on DATE . However in DATE he claimed that he had not received it and applied to the court for a leave to appeal out of time .

On DATE ORG of PERSON granted the applicant ’s request and accepted his appeal for examination .

On DATE ORG of PERSON examined the appeal and upheld it . It remitted the case for a fresh examination before the court of first instance .

On DATE the ORG ruled to prepare the case for examination and required the applicant to provide certain documents for the file . Pending his reply the case was not scheduled for a hearing . In DATE the court concluded that the applicant had failed to submit the required information and fixed a hearing for DATE .

On the latter date the court examined the case and rejected the applicant ’s claims . On the point concerning the non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused to the applicant by the late provision of housing , the court found the applicant ’s submissions unsubstantiated , in particular in view of his failure to indicate the periods when he was deprived of temporary housing .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer for recovery of his salary and damages caused by delays in its payment . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant amended his claims .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s claims in part . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of PERSON reversed the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a rehearing .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s claims in part . The judgment was executed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages against a financial authority of the village NORP Shmidta ( администрация расчетно-кассового центра поселка PERSON ) claiming that there had been a delay of payments for which they were responsible .

On DATE the ORG examined the applicant ’s claims and granted them in part . The applicant lodged an appeal , however the proceedings were stayed until the applicant paid the court fees on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal was examined and upheld . The court remitted it for a fresh examination by the first instance court .

On DATE the District court required the applicant to provide certain information by DATE . The applicant made the necessary submissions and amended his claims on DATE . He accepted to substitute ORG for the original defendant . The defendant ’s observations were submitted on DATE . Then the hearing could not be scheduled , first , because for DATE the court building was closed due to the heating problems in the town , then because the judge was on a CARDINAL months’ leave and afterwards the court had to deal with the accrued backlog of cases .

A hearing was fixed for DATE , but the defendant requested an adjournment until DATE .

On DATE the ORG examined the applicant ’s claims and rejected them . The applicant appealed , but the proceedings were stayed until the applicant paid the court fees . The applicant failed to do so , and on DATE the court ruled to discontinue the appeal proceedings .

On DATE a judge of ORG ordered the applicant ’s former employer , a municipal enterprise providing public utilities , to pay him salary arrears in the amount of ORG . The order was executed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the bailiffs for damages caused by their failure to enforce the order in due time . The first instance court ’s judgment was delivered on DATE . The applicant was sent a copy of this judgment by post , but in DATE he claimed that he had not received it . Upon his request of DATE , the court granted him leave to lodge an appeal out of time .

On DATE ORG of PERSON examined the appeal and reversed the first instance judgment . The case was remitted for a fresh examination by the first instance court .

On DATE the court required the defendant to submit additional comments . The case was then scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the Shmidtovskiy District Court examined the case and rejected the applicant ’s claims . The parties submitted no information as to whether an appeal was lodged against this judgment .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the bailiffs for damages allegedly caused by their failure to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL September CARDINAL in due time . On DATE the court declined jurisdiction over the case , but upon the applicant ’s appeal , on DATE the ORG accepted the case for examination . On DATE the court required the applicant to submit additional observations and evidence . On DATE and DATE the court reiterated the request and invited the applicant to substitute the defendant .

The hearing was scheduled for DATE but it was adjourned until DATE because the defendant could not attend and due to the applicant ’s filing additional submissions . On the latter date the court adjourned the hearing on the ground that there had been no confirmation of the applicant ’s notification of the new date of the hearing .

On DATE the ORG examined the case and rejected the applicant ’s claims .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , but the proceedings were stayed until the applicant filed a request for leave to appeal out of time . The applicant ’s request reached the court on DATE and was granted on DATE .

On DATE ORG of PERSON began the examination of the appeal . However it held to remit the case to the district court for an additional judgment concerning the court fees . The additional judgment was delivered by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against the additional judgment of DATE , which was stayed because the applicant lodged his appeal out of time and did not request leave for appeal out of time . On DATE the applicant made such a request , and on DATE the court granted it and accepted the appeal for examination .

On DATE ORG of PERSON upheld the additional judgment of DATE .


Violation of Art. 3;Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies)

The applicant , who was born in DATE , is currently in prison in GPE .

During DATE he has been convicted of various criminal offences . In particular , he was sentenced on DATE by ORG for the département of PERSON to DATE imprisonment for armed robbery ; on DATE by ORG to DATE imprisonment for making off without payment ; on DATE by ORG to DATE imprisonment for armed robbery ; and on DATE by ORG to DATE imprisonment for making off without payment . He was due for release from DATE according to him , and from QUANTITY DATE according to ORG .

In DATE the applicant was also sentenced to DATE imprisonment by ORG for failing to return to prison on time after his last period of leave in DATE , having complied with the arrangements on the previous CARDINAL occasions . The experts who examined him on the subject concluded that “ at the material time ” he had been suffering from a “ psychological disorder ” that had temporarily “ impaired his judgment ” and that prison could not be “ therapeutic ” for him , especially in view of his advanced age .

The applicant subsequently underwent a medical examination in prison and was found to have swollen glands in the throat area . The relevant service accordingly prescribed medical treatment . It was decided that the applicant would undergo an operation on DATE after being taken to hospital on DATE at TIME

On DATE the governor of PERSON informed the prefect that the prisoner needed to be taken to hospital and requested the presence of a police escort to supervise and guard him throughout his stay . As regards the security risk , the prison staff were issued with instructions that the applicant was to be kept under normal and not heightened supervision , left to the discretion of the senior escorting officer but in principle not requiring the permanent use of handcuffs and restraints .

On DATE , DATE before the operation , the applicant was transferred , in handcuffs , to ORG in GPE in a prison van . CARDINAL police officers were waiting for him at the hospital in order to supervise and guard him throughout his time there . For the rest of DATE the applicant remained handcuffed but not shackled .

During TIME , a restraint was used on the applicant , consisting of a chain attaching CARDINAL of his ankles to the bedpost . The Government assert that the restraint left him considerable freedom to move about in the bed , whereas the applicant maintains that the tension of the chain made any movement difficult or painful and sleep impossible .

On DATE , in the morning , the applicant stated that , if he could not be kept in humane conditions in hospital , he would prefer to be operated on once he had been released from prison . After a meeting with the hospital staff , he returned to prison on DATE at TIME

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint , together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party , with the senior investigating judge at the ORG tribunal de grande instance , alleging “ serious ill - treatment ” , “ assault ” and “ torture ” . In the complaint , lodged against the CARDINAL police officers who had guarded him while he was in hospital , he alleged a violation of LAW , on account of the use of a restraint during TIME .

In an order of DATE , served on DATE , the senior investigating judge set the amount of the security payable for costs at MONEY .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that order in a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt to the senior registrar of the ORG tribunal de grande instance , and also applied to the legal aid office on account of his limited resources . On DATE , he informed the senior investigating judge that he was appealing because his means were insufficient .

The application for legal aid was registered on DATE and refused on DATE . In an order of DATE the President of the ORG tribunal de grande instance confirmed the refusal on the following ground :

“ LAW expressly reserves the use of restraints for persons who are likely to attempt to abscond . That is so in the case of a prisoner who is outside the prison compound . ”

In an order of CARDINAL DATE , the senior investigating judge declared the applicant 's complaint inadmissible for failure to pay the security .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG of ORG had declared the appeal against the order for payment of a security inadmissible for failure to comply with LAW , by which an appeal by a prisoner must be lodged through the prison governor .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment . The proceedings are currently pending before ORG .

Having been released on DATE after completing his sentence , the applicant has subsequently been imprisoned in the context of separate proceedings .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ No one may be forced to wear handcuffs or restraints unless he is considered either a danger to others or to himself , or likely to attempt to abscond . ”

A general circular of DATE states :

“ ... that provision applies to all members of an escort , regardless of whether the person concerned is being held in police custody , brought to court , detained pending trial or detained following conviction .

's intention .

Except in special circumstances , ... persons whose mobility is impaired on account of their age or health ... are unlikely to pose the dangers referred to in the LAW ... ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in ORG , seeking the judicial review of a resolution adopted by the community of owners of the building in which her flat was located ( közgyűlési határozat ) .

ORG held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG appointed an expert . On DATE it replaced him . On DATE the new expert submitted his opinion , which was completed on DATE .

ORG held further hearings on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE .

According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date , the case has not yet ended .


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

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

On DATE regulatory offence proceedings were instituted against the applicant , because his dog had bitten Mr H. On DATE he was fined on account of the regulatory offence of ‘ endangering with a dog’ ( kutyával való veszélyeztetés ) . On the applicant ’s objection , the case was forwarded to ORG . The court ordered that the principal decision be reviewed . As a result , on DATE the court changed the decision and fined the applicant a lesser amount on account of the regulatory offence of having walked his dog without a leash . This decision was declared final on DATE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant , in the context of the same incident , for ‘ not having assisted the victim’ in respect of the danger caused by him .

DATE and DATE , ORG held CARDINAL hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert . On DATE it acquitted the applicant for want of evidence . The public prosecutor ’s office appealed but withdrew its appeal on DATE .

The applicant ’s appeal , pleading the absence of a crime , was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

In the meantime , the applicant ’s criminal accusations against an interrogator involved in the above proceedings were to no avail and were finally rejected by ORG on DATE .