Preliminary objection rejected (victim);Violation of Art. 6-1;Just satisfaction reserved

In DATE Mr. PERSON , who was born in DATE , founded the building firm of " PERSON , timber , steel and building materials " at ORG ( GPE ) , and worked there with his wife , PERSON . He subsequently set up several branches in other places and , in particular , a branch at GPE , near GPE , in DATE , which was transferred shortly afterwards to PERSON , and then in DATE an office in GPE . In DATE he was employing CARDINAL people .

The firm ’s business consisted in supplying materials and , later , building sites on credit for people who wanted to build but had few financial resources . Such a system , which the applicant himself called the " Eckle system " , had not hitherto been used in the building materials trade .

He covered his financial needs - from DATE at least - by loans from individuals , who were offered mortgages as security ( GPE ) . In DATE , however , he began to encounter difficulties in this regard and towards the middle of DATE he ceased payment to his creditors of the sums due to them . The overall total of money he owed amounted at the time to QUANTITY .

The trade practices of the applicants from DATE to DATE were the subject of CARDINAL separate sets of prosecutions in GPE , GPE and GPE . The first and last of these are in issue in the instant case : the applicants complain that their duration exceeded the " reasonable time " referred to in LAW . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

In a case of this kind , it is necessary to set out in detail each stage of the impugned proceedings .

Acting on a complaint lodged on DATE by a bank at PERSON , the public prosecutor ’s office began , in DATE , a preliminary investigation ( ORG ) in respect of Mr. PERSON . On DATE , after it had obtained information from the Trier Bezirksregierung as to the existence of maximum prices in the building materials trade and without having questioned either the applicants or any witnesses , the prosecutor ’s office stopped the investigation . Examination of the complaint was resumed with a fresh preliminary investigation prompted by the receipt in DATE of a letter from ORG advising the public prosecutor that Mr. PERSON was promising to supply his clients with building materials " at average market prices " ( handelsübliche ORG ) whereas his prices were in fact MONEY higher .

In DATE , the investigation was suspected pending the outcome of a civil action brought against Mr. PERSON by CARDINAL of his customers , in which the concept of " average market prices " used by Mr. PERSON in his contracts would have to be clarified . These civil proceedings were concluded on DATE with a judgment of ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) holding that the applicant had charged prices higher than the average market prices , contrary to the commitments he had entered into with his customers .

CARDINAL witnesses were interviewed DATE , and CARDINAL witnesses in DATE .

In DATE , the competent authorities held hearings of CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL of them outside LOC . DATE the applicant ’s business LOC were searched and business records ( PERSON ) seized . These searches took place firstly on DATE on an application from the GPE public prosecutor ’s office but in the presence of CARDINAL officials from ORG , and subsequently on DATE on an application from the ORG public prosecutor ’s office which , on CARDINAL and DATE , questioned Mrs. PERSON for the first time .

In DATE , CARDINAL witnesses were heard , CARDINAL of them outside the Land .

CARDINAL of the CARDINAL public prosecutors ( GPE ) at ORG , who was in charge of the investigation , was relieved of his other duties in DATE in order to allow him to devote himself entirely to the Eckle case . At the instance of the Minister of Justice of the Land , a special commission of CARDINAL officers from the criminal police began assisting the public prosecutor from DATE so that the investigation could be intensified . Previously , as from DATE , a member of the criminal police had been dealing specifically with the case .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office ordered the closure of the investigation , during which according to undisputed information provided by ORG witnesses had testified and CARDINAL documents - extracts from land registers ( PERSON ) , contracts , bills , drafts , etc . - had been examined . The prosecutor ’s office had made up CARDINAL main files ( GPE ) and CARDINAL subsidiary files ( ORG ) , to which had been added CARDINAL files relating to civil suits .

On DATE likewise , the public prosecutor ’s office informed the applicants and CARDINAL former female employees of the Eckle firm that it intended to " indict " them . They were requested to give notice within DATE if they wished to have , before their committal for trial , a " final hearing " by the public prosecutor ’s office ( GPE ) under LAW ( in force until DATE ) .

On DATE , CARDINAL counsels for Mr. PERSON asked to be allowed to inspect the file before replying .

After a conference with them on DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office notified them on DATE that the file would be available to them at the secretariat until DATE .

The legal advisers acting for Mrs. PERSON and for the CARDINAL employees did not respond . Accordingly , counsel were assigned to them officially but were replaced in DATE and DATE by counsel instructed by the parties themselves .

In DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office sent Mr. PERSON ’s legal representatives a copy of the main sections of the file , as had been agreed DATE , and gave them until DATE to decide whether or not they wanted a " final hearing " .

A further counsel appeared for Mr. PERSON on DATE , and then a fourth . They too asked for an opportunity to consult the file and for copies of certain documents in the file ; in DATE , they were given a deadline for stating whether they were requesting a " final hearing " .

DATE , the CARDINAL counsel applied for a " final hearing " and for the original file to be made available to each of them beforehand for DATE . However , they withdrew their requests on DATE and CARDINAL May , respectively .

Once proceedings relating to the " final hearing " had thus been concluded , the public prosecutor ’s office drew up the " bill of indictment " ( PERSON ) . Drafting of this was completed on DATE and the typescript was sent to ORG ( CARDINAL . ORG ) of ORG ( Landgericht ) on DATE .

The " bill of indictment " , which filled CARDINAL volumes and comprised CARDINAL pages in all , was directed against the applicants and the CARDINAL former female employees of the Eckle firm . It alleged a total of CARDINAL offences of fraud and extortion , listed CARDINAL witnesses and mentioned CARDINAL documents produced in evidence .

Proceedings had been dropped by the public prosecutor ’s office in respect of CARDINAL cases , in CARDINAL of them pursuant to LAW . In the version in force until DATE , this provision empowered the court ( paragraph CARDINAL ) and , until a " bill of indictment " had been preferred , the public prosecutor ( paragraph CARDINAL ) to take such a measure at any stage of the proceedings if , in particular , the sentence liable to be passed at the end of the proceedings was negligible in comparison with CARDINAL already finally ( rechtskräftig ) imposed on the accused - or which the accused had to expect - for another offence .

On DATE , the public prosecutor in charge of the case conferred with the President of ORG about the duplications arising from criminal proceedings pending in GPE , where the trial hearing was due to begin on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office withdrew the " bill of indictment " because it had learned of other possible offences and felt that further inquiries were necessary .

On DATE , the GPE public prosecutor ’s office , which had opened a preliminary investigation in respect of Mr. PERSON on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , stated its willingness to deal with the new cases which the ORG public prosecutor ’s office had begun to inquire into . As a result , the ORG public prosecutor ’s office transferred these cases to GPE on DATE and on DATE preferred the " bill of indictment " - unchanged in any way - for a second time .

DATE and DATE , CARDINAL fresh cases , of which CARDINAL concerned the GPE and GPE public prosecutor ’s offices , had been examined .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the President of ORG of ORG took several steps to ensure that the accused were represented ; on the last - mentioned of these dates , ORG assigned to them CARDINAL officially appointed defence counsel .

On DATE , the President drew the attention of the public prosecutor ’s office to the fact that it had not yet offered the accused a " final hearing " in respect of the new cases . The prosecutor ’s office replied on DATE , pointing out that these cases had been transferred to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , ORG asked to be sent the " bill of indictment " drawn up by the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) : the ORG was examining whether the numerous offences alleged against the applicants amounted to continuous conduct which had to be regarded as a single offence , in which event the prior conviction at GPE would preclude any further conviction . DATE the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office transmitted to ORG a copy of the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and informed it that the files had been forwarded to the federal public prosecutor ’s office ( Bundesanwaltschaft ) for the purposes of the proceedings for review on a point of law ( PERSON ) .

In response to a request from CARDINAL of the defence counsel for the applicants that he should be given copies of the file , ORG , declared , inter alia , on DATE that it remained to be decided whether the above - mentioned preferment of the " bill of indictment " could validly stand .

On DATE , ORG sought information from the GPE public prosecutor ’s office about the state of the proceedings ; it stressed that it needed the " bill of indictment " it had asked for on DATE . This was finally sent on DATE by the ORG public prosecutor ’s office , which urged at the same time that a decision be taken on the " bill of indictment " it had itself preferred .

On DATE , ORG admitted the latter " bill of indictment " ( PERSON ) and ordered that the trial open FAC ) .

Counsel for Mrs. PERSON having asked on DATE for the file to be made available to him , ORG replied on DATE that copies would be forwarded to him . On DATE counsel for Mr. PERSON called on ORG to quash the preferment of the " bill of indictment " .

On DATE , counsel for Mrs. PERSON urgently requested ORG not to take any action in the case before receiving the text of the judgment delivered on DATE by ORG ( ORG ) in the matter of the GPE proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The judgment was transmitted to ORG on DATE by the ORG public prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE ORG had refused to issue a warrant for the arrest of Mr. PERSON on the grounds that he was still subject to such a warrant in the GPE proceedings .

On DATE , it informed counsel for Mrs. PERSON , who on DATE had complained that CARDINAL files were missing , that these related to proceedings which had been dropped .

On DATE , CARDINAL of the officially assigned defence lawyers had asked the ORG to revoke his appointment . In order to enable him to continue to act , ORG suggested to the public prosecutor ’s office on DATE that it should ask for proceedings to be terminated in the case in which the lawyer in question had previously appeared in another capacity . On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office made a request to this effect , which ORG granted on DATE .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office applied for a warrant for the arrest of Mr. PERSON who had been released from detention in relation to the GPE proceedings , but ORG refused the application on DATE . On appeal by the public prosecutor ’s office , ORG quashed this decision on DATE and issued a warrant for the arrest on the applicant .

At the request of the public prosecutor ’s office ( DATE ) ORG ( Amtsgericht ) on DATE served the warrant on Mr. PERSON who was in detention in GPE in respect of the proceedings there ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Mr. PERSON immediately appealed against the issuing of the warrant , but ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE .

On DATE , the President of ORG of ORG advised the relevant authority that the magnitude of the PERSON case was preventing him from handling other cases . On DATE , he reached an agreement with his colleague at ORG as to the dates of the hearings to be held by their respective courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE , he fixed the date of QUANTITY DATE for the opening of the trial hearing and notified defence counsel accordingly .

On DATE , counsel for Mrs. PERSON withdrew a statement whereby , on DATE , he had waived his claim to certain costs and expenses , and requested ORG to appoint him as defence counsel unconditionally . DATE , counsel for Mr. PERSON applied for a postponement of the hearings , asserting that he dit not have enough time to prepare the defence . ORG rejected both applications on DATE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON himself asked for the hearings to be postponed , pleading , inter alia , LAW . CARDINAL ( b ) ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL-b ) of the LAW , but ORG refused the request on DATE .

The trial opened on DATE . Mr. PERSON immediately sought an adjournment , and Mrs. PERSON suspension of the proceedings ; the third defendant challenged CARDINAL of the judges .

ORG dismissed the challenge on DATE . On DATE , it excluded Mr. PERSON from the courtroom on grounds of his behaviour before the ORG and , in answer to an objection raised by CARDINAL of the co - defendants , affirmed its jurisdiction in the case .

DATE , it declined to grant a further application for an adjournment which Mr. PERSON had made on DATE . On DATE , Mr. PERSON requested his release from detention ; he and his wife went so far as to refuse to give their particulars , and counsel for the defence asked ORG for the author of the " bill of indictment " to be called as a witness so that certain points in it could be clarified .

The public prosecutor who had drawn up the " bill of indictment " was heard on DATE , after which all the defendants applied for the proceedings to be terminated . Mr. PERSON declared himself unfit to stand trial and sought a formal decision from ORG on this matter .

The " bill of indictment " and the prior order to commence the trial hearing were read out in court on DATE . Prior to that , ORG had ordered that prosecution in some of the cases should be dropped . It also refused the defendant ’s applications for the discontinuance or suspension of the proceedings . On DATE , Mr. PERSON challenged CARDINAL of the judges and asked ORG to postpone the hearing in order to give him time to obtain the documents needed to support his challenge .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON was once more removed from the courtroom and sentenced to DATE imprisonment for his behaviour before the ORG : he had insulted the President and thrown paper at him . In evidence to ORG , a doctor who had examined the applicant considered him fit to stand trial , although stating that it would be necessary to keep the applicant under observation before being able to give a final opinion .

ORG thereupon decided that Mr. PERSON should provisionally be placed in a psychiatric hospital with a view to a medical report being made on him ; the hearing was adjourned sine die on DATE .

The psychiatric examination was completed on DATE and the medical report filed on DATE . According to the doctor , the applicant ’s behaviour during the hearings was not the result of any illness .

DATE and DATE , hearings took place in the GPE proceedings , which ended on the latter date with the conviction of Mr. PERSON ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

On DATE , hearings resumed before ORG of ORG , the President of which had been replaced in DATE ; the hearings continued until DATE . During DATE of hearings , ORG heard CARDINAL witnesses , including an expert witness , and CARDINAL documents were read out .

According to the undisputed account of the proceedings furnished by the ORG , Mr. PERSON challenged judges on CARDINAL occasions - sometimes twice on DATE - and his wife did so some CARDINAL times . Furthermore , he objected to the composition of ORG , challenged CARDINAL experts , introduced CARDINAL motions to take evidence ( ORG ) , requested his release from detention CARDINAL times and suspension of the trial CARDINAL times . CARDINAL times he claimed to be unfit to stand trial and requested a medical examination ; on CARDINAL occasions ORG took evidence from a doctor who , on CARDINAL of these occasions , judged the applicant to be incapable of attending court for the rest of DATE . On CARDINAL occasions Mr. PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment on account of his behaviour and he was CARDINAL times removed from the courtroom for DATE , notably in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

According to the same account , Mrs. PERSON for her part submitted motions to take evidence on CARDINAL occasions ; she applied CARDINAL times to ORG for the instructions given to the counsel officially assigned to defend her to be withdrawn , twice for the trial to be suspended , twice again for it to be discontinued and on CARDINAL occasions for the appointment of a second lawyer .

On DATE , ORG terminated the proceedings , pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in respect of CARDINAL of the counts in the " bill of indictment " .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON was sentenced to imprisonment for DATE and DATE , his wife to a term of DATE and the CARDINAL co - defendants to DATE respectively . At the same time , ORG discharged the warrant for the arrest of the applicant .

ORG judgment found Mr. PERSON guilty of fraud committed jointly with other persons to the detriment of customers in CARDINAL cases and to the detriment of creditors in QUANTITY cases , and of attempted fraud in CARDINAL case concerning a creditor . On CARDINAL charges relating to a customer and a creditor respectively he was acquitted . The ORG terminated proceedings in CARDINAL cases because they were time - barred .

Mrs. PERSON was convicted of fraud committed jointly with other persons in CARDINAL cases to the detriment of customers and in QUANTITY cases to the detriment of creditors , and of attempted fraud in CARDINAL case involving a creditor . The ORG acquitted her on the same CARDINAL counts as her husband and terminated proceedings in CARDINAL cases , including the CARDINAL cases that also concerned her husband .

According to the findings in the judgment , the conclusion of the illegal contracts dated back to DATE in respect of the customers and DATE in respect of the creditors .

When deciding the sentences ORG took into account , inter alia , " to the advantage of all the defendants " , " the inordinate length of time during which they had been exposed to the drawbacks and unpleasantness of the investigation and trial proceedings , something which was not wholly their own fault " .

The judgment - which ran to CARDINAL pages - was served on the applicants on DATE that is QUANTITY than DATE after its delivery .

Whilst the trial hearing was continuing , an auxiliary chamber ( Hilfskammer ) specially set up to relieve ORG dealt with all the other cases allocated to the latter .

The CARDINAL persons convicted petitioned for review on a point of law ( Revision ) . In this connection , DATE and DATE Mr. and Mrs. PERSON submitted several memorials to ORG , alleging various errors in law as well as procedural irregularities .

After the counter - memorial by the ORG public prosecutor ’s office had been drafted on DATE , the file was sent to the federal public prosecutor ’s office on DATE .

On DATE , the federal public prosecutor ’s office noticed that it was not clear from the file how CARDINAL of the cases heard by ORG had been disposed of .

When consulted on this , the ORG public prosecutor ’s office pointed out that most of the obscurities arose from inaccuracies in TIME of the hearings , while in CARDINAL cases the failure to cease prosecution was due to inadvertence . The matter was referred to ORG , which decided on DATE and DATE to rectify the TIME and terminate the proceedings relating to the CARDINAL cases in question . On DATE , the ORG public prosecutor ’s office returned the file , together with a supplementary report , to the federal public prosecutor ’s office and at the latter ’s request also forwarded the " bill of indictment " of DATE .

On DATE , the federal public prosecutor ’s office requested the ORG public prosecutor ’s office to reply in writing to the applicant ’s objections to the composition of ORG and , in particular , to produce the official statements of the judges concerned and the charts showing the allocation of business in DATE .

After taking - DATE - statements from CARDINAL judges ( some of whom were no longer in GPE ) , the public prosecutor ’s office sent them to the federal public prosecutor ’s office on DATE together with comments . On DATE , it transmitted some further documents which the federal public prosecutor ’s office had asked for on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant ’s new lawyer applied for the proceedings to be dropped as being time - barred . On DATE , the member of the federal public prosecutor ’s office dealing with the case requested the President of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG to set down a date for the opening of the hearing : in his submission , the proceedings were not time - barred .

On DATE , the President directed that the hearing should be held on DATE .

Mrs. PERSON ’s new defence counsel submitted supplementary written pleadings on DATE ; and on DATE , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL co - defendants withdrew her petition for review on a point of law .

Following the hearing on DATE , ORG dismissed the petitions on DATE .

At the end of the judgment , ORG recalled that cumulative sentences ( PERSON ) combining those passed in LOC and in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) remained to be determined . In this connection , it stated , inter alia :

" Excessive length of criminal proceedings may - and ORG did not overlook this - constitute a special mitigating circumstance ( ORG in PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . When a cumulative sentence has to be determined retrospectively , this consideration must likewise apply to the period which has already elapsed between the hearing before the trial court and the moment when the principle of res judicata took effect in respect of the judgment , and which will continue to elapse until the final decision . Attention must also be drawn in this case to the special burden imposed on the defendants by the dividing up of groups of cases consisting in the repeated commission of similar offences into CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings . The ORG is not required to rule on the merits of this allocation . It considers , however , that the spirit of the law would be lost sight of ... if , when determining sentence , this circumstance were not clearly ( deutlich ) taken into account . "

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , Mr. and Mrs. PERSON applied to ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) . Challenging the judgments of both ORG and ORG , they alleged a violation of sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL par . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) , mainly on account of the excessive length of the trial and of the existence of CARDINAL distinct sets of proceedings .

On DATE , a bench of CARDINAL members of ORG decided not to hear the applications ; it judged that they did not offer sufficient prospects of success .

On DATE , ORG fixed cumulative sentences combining those it had pronounced itself and those imposed by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The new sentences fixed were : imprisonment for DATE in the case of Mr. PERSON and for DATE and DATE in the case of his wife . Acting on submissions dated DATE from the ORG public prosecutor ’s office , the ORG suspended for DATE that part of Mr. PERSON ’s sentence which was in excess of DATE and DATE , and suspended for DATE that part of Mrs. PERSON ’s sentence which was in excess of DATE and DATE .

In the grounds given for its decision in respect of Mr. PERSON , ORG repeated the above - quoted reasoning of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It appeared to the ORG that the long duration of the criminal proceedings should be taken into account in Mrs. PERSON ’s favour too .

On DATE , ORG dismissed an " immediate appeal " ( sofortige PERSON ) entered by each of the applicants , on CARDINAL and DATE respectively , against ORG decision . ORG held , inter alia :

" ... ORG rightly regarded the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the separation of groups of comparable cases into several acts of proceedings as a special mitigating circumstance and it took account of this when determining sentence ( ORG in PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Its dicta on this point are comprehensive , sensible and in accordance with the principles laid down by ORG in its judgment of DATE in the instant case ... [ ORG ] too is of the opninion that these reasons justify a cumulative sentence of [ DATE for Mr. PERSON and DATE for Mrs. PERSON ] . Even having regard to LAW ... , this sentence does not appear to be unduly severe ( ibid , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Considering also the culpability ( unter PERSON ) of the defendants , a reduction of sentence does not seem appropriate ... "

According to the ORG , Mr. and Mrs. PERSON thereupon applied to ORG which rejected their applications .

On DATE , the GPE public prosecutor ’s office began a preliminary investigation of Mr. PERSON , who was suspected of having committed , inter alia , various frauds . From DATE the investigation - which had been commenced ex officio following the appearance of a number of articles in the press - was extended to cover several complaints lodged in DATE and DATE by purchasers of building materials and persons who had made loans to the Eckle firm .

The GPE proceedings comprised CARDINAL groups of charges in all ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the Commission ’s report ) :

( a ) They covered first of all a complex of frauds against customers of the Eckle firm who had allegedly suffered losses after the latter had gone bankrupt . The persons concerned in this part of the proceedings were the applicants , the CARDINAL close collaborators who were later convicted at ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a tax consultant , CARDINAL architects and a building expert .

( b ) The second group concerned ORG company in GPE . The object of this company , which was founded in DATE by CARDINAL former employees of the applicants , was to carry on the Eckle firm ’s business activities in the GPE area . Mr. PERSON was supposedly in control of this company ; his wife had been given power of disposal over its assets . The company had ceased payments at DATE , and in DATE bankruptcy proceedings were commenced .

( c ) The third group of charges was connected with Mr. PERSON ’s relations with a Mr. PERSON of GPE and the companies he controlled , and in particular their financial and trading operations , with alleged transfers of property to GPE and GPE , and with the bankruptcy of the PERSON companies ; proceedings in respect of the latter were , however , severed from the rest .

( d ) The fourth group dealt with the business relations of the Eckle firm or the ORG company and its manager with an accountant and CARDINAL companies both called PERSON , whose head offices were in GPE ( GPE ) and GPE .

( e ) The fifth group related mainly to the Eckle company ; the applicants , those of their employees accused with them and other persons were suspected of having committed either as principals , co - principals or accessories offences of fraudulent bankruptcy and tax evasion .

During DATE and DATE , the investigation was widened to cover QUANTITY persons other than the applicants .

At the request of the public prosecutor ’s office , ORG ( Amtsgericht ) issued a search and seizure warrant in respect of the applicants on DATE . The police thereupon searched the business premises of the Eckle company on DATE They seized QUANTITY of documents which the public prosecutor ’s office made available to an accountant ( PERSON ) whom it had appointed as a consultant DATE . Also in DATE a special commission was set up composed of a public prosecutor and CARDINAL police officers who were specialists in investigating economic crime ; this commission worked exclusively on the PERSON case and continued in existence until DATE .

According to the account of events provided by the ORG , DATE the relevant authorities applied for , authorised and , with a few exceptions , performed numerous searches of the offices and private dwellings of the applicants and some of their co - accused , the offices of other companies and the offices of CARDINAL banks ; in addition , they seized a mass of documents . In DATE : such measures were carried out on DATE , at Völklingen ; on DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , at ORG ; and on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , at PERSON ; on CARDINAL and DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; in DATE : on DATE , in GPE ; on CARDINAL and DATE , at ORG and in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE and GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; from DATE , at Völklingen and in GPE ; on DATE in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; on CARDINAL and DATE , in GPE and at PERSON ; on DATE , in LOC ; on DATE , at Seligenstadt ; on DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; and on DATE , in GPE ; in DATE : on DATE in GPE and ORG ; on DATE , at PERSON ; on CARDINAL and DATE , in GPE ; on DATE , in GPE ; on CARDINAL and DATE , at PERSON ; on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , at GPE and GPE ; on DATE at GPE ; and on DATE , in GPE and at LOC ; in DATE : on DATE , in GPE and at GPE ; and on DATE , in GPE ; in DATE : on DATE , in GPE ; and on DATE , at LOC ; and in DATE : on DATE , in GPE .

The appeals which the parties concerned lodged from time to time ( for example , on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE and on DATE and DATE ) were dismissed , except for the second one , which was partly allowed on DATE by ORG .

The prosecutor in charge of the investigation conferred on CARDINAL and DATE with the criminal investigation police about coordination of action and , on DATE , with the consultant whom he instructed to carry out certain tasks ( ORG ) .

On DATE , he requested the criminal investigation police to question CARDINAL witnesses about certain specified points , and , on DATE , he sent further documents to the consultant .

On DATE , he assumed responsibility for a number of cases and agreed to the transfer of those which the ORG public prosecutor ’s office had begun to inquire into ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE , he requested the public prosecutor ’s offices in GPE and GPE to forward to him various file of which he had copies made on DATE .

During DATE that followed , the prosecutor took over a number of preliminary investigations which had begun elsewhere : CARDINAL of them on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE and CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE , he asked the federal office of the criminal investigation police ( Bundeskriminalamt ) to make inquiries into a company in GPE and CARDINAL others in GPE which he suspected were being run by Mr. PERSON and his fellow accused PERSON .

On DATE , he asked for certain inquiries to be made by the criminal investigation police in GPE , GPE and other places , and circulated a letter written in DATE and containing a list of questions to numerous foreign companies and individuals residing abroad who had allegedly suffered loss .

On DATE too , he summoned a witness in order to have him questioned by the criminal investigation police ; other witnesses made statements on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

At the request and in the presence of the public prosecutor ’s office , one of the co - accused was questioned on DATE by a judge from ORG ; another co - accused was similarly questioned on DATE .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office instructed the consultant it had appointed in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to produce an expert opinion on CARDINAL listed points , including the history of the ORG company and its relations with the PERSON company . On DATE , it sent him other documents for the purpose .

On DATE and DATE , CARDINAL preliminary investigations in respect of Mr. PERSON which had been begun notably in GPE , GPE and GPE were transferred to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office , which on DATE made inquiries of the local authorities of CARDINAL municipalities concerning the purchase of land by the ORG company and at the same time asked for the production of the land registers of the relevant district courts .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE prosecutor ’s office heard the applicant informally for information purposes . On DATE and DATE , it summoned witnesses in GPE and GPE for questioning ; on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , it advised the public prosecutor ’s office in GPE and GPE of the purpose of the investigation and of a number of inquiries made and still to be made . On DATE , the ORG public prosecutor ’s office sent to GPE CARDINAL volumes of the file on the proceedings in GPE ; these were returned by the GPE office on DATE . On DATE , the latter asked the presiding judges of ORG of GPE and PERSON to provide it with a list of the seizures which had been made in respect of the Eckle firm and the applicants .

In DATE , DATE and DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office instructed the criminal investigation police in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE to make inquiries into life - insurance policies which Mr. PERSON had taken out with a number of companies ; sought information from an insurer in GPE ; obtained the opinion of ORG ( GPE für GPE ) ; and applied for the files concerning the land register at PERSON .

According to the report of the Commission , from DATE to DATE statements were taken from CARDINAL creditors , from the majority of CARDINAL purchasers of building materials from the Eckle company and from a large number of other witnesses or employees ; and the Eckle company ’s accounts with CARDINAL credit institutions were examined . Until DATE the investigation was focused on the alleged frauds committed by the accused to the detriment of CARDINAL creditors and CARDINAL purchasers of building materials .

As requested by the public prosecutor ’s office on CARDINAL DATE , ORG issued , DATE , a warrant for the arrest of CARDINAL co - accused and Mr. PERSON . The latter was remanded in custody on DATE and he remained in custody on that basis until DATE ; from DATE in accordance with a decision taken by ORG on DATE , he was detained on the basis of the warrant for his arrest which ORG had issued on DATE in the proceedings at ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant several times appealed unsuccessfully to ORG , ORG and ORG against the issue of the arrest warrant on DATE .

During the latter period , that is DATE and DATE , the GPE public prosecutor ’s office heard Mrs. PERSON ( DATE ) ; discussed the progress of the proceedings with the public prosecutor ’s office in GPE ( DATE ) which , by mutual agreement , transferred to GPE an investigation in respect of CARDINAL of the other persons accused ( DATE ) ; had CARDINAL witnesses summoned in GPE ( DATE ) ; and set dates for the hearing of a number of people , notably in GPE , GPE , PERSON and GPE ( CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE , the consultant ’s terms of reference were widened , and the consultant informed the public prosecutor ’s office CARDINAL DATE that an expert opinion could not be produced before DATE .

On DATE , ORG refused to make available to Mr. PERSON the legal codes , books and periodicals and the CARDINAL files which he had asked for .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON challenged a judge on ORG , which rejected the challenge on DATE as no grounds for it had been adduced . An appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG of appeal - CARDINAL of whose judges Mr. PERSON had previously challenged - because he had not put forward any supporting reasons , although the ORG had twice given him extra time to do so .

Continuing its investigation , the public prosecutor ’s office proceeded to set dates for hearing a number of people itself , mainly elsewhere than in GPE , or alternatively to request the appropriate criminal investigation police or courts to question them ( CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) ; business records of the Eckle company were examined , seized and sent to the consultant by the prosecutor ’s office ( CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE ) ; requests for the production of files were made to other courts , including ORG ( DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ) ; information was sought from ORG ( DATE ) ; and ORG was asked to make certain inquiries ( DATE ) .

On DATE , the consultant submitted an interim report on the Eckle company ’s indebtedness , insolvency and suspension of payments .

On DATE , a doctor transmitted to the public prosecutor ’s office an expert opinion , which it had requested on DATE , on Mr. PERSON ’s fitness to stand trial .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON applied , amongst other things , for the warrant for his arrest to be revoked . ORG refused the application on DATE . On appeal , ORG on DATE and then ORG on DATE upheld that decision .

DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office summoned , or caused to be summoned , a number of witnesses , Mrs. PERSON and other accused persons so that they could make statements ( notably on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE ) and on DATE requested another doctor to give his opinion on Mr. PERSON ’s fitness to stand trial .

From DATE , DATE he was convicted in the ORG proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant was detained on remand under a warrant issued , and subsequently confirmed on CARDINAL May , by the relevant GPE court . On DATE , the same court decided to suspend Mr. PERSON ’s remand in custody to enable him to serve the sentence passed on him on DATE by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG dismissed appeals by Mr. PERSON on DATE and DATE .

The public prosecutor ’s office completed the investigation on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE dropped the prosecutions against some of the co - accused .

It asked ORG on DATE to assign CARDINAL official defence counsel , in particular for Mr. PERSON . On DATE , the ORG appointed CARDINAL of them - Mr. PERSON to whom the public prosecutor ’s office sent a copy of the files and other documents on DATE and CARDINAL DATE - but refused Mr. PERSON ’s request that it should nominate Mr. PERSON , who had defended him in the trial at ORG . An appeal by Mr. PERSON against this latter decision was dismissed on DATE . On DATE , ORG discharged Mr. PERSON from his duties and replaced him as official defence counsel by the applicant ’s lawyer , Mr. PERSON , to whom it had already sent the main files , among other things , on DATE .

On DATE , the consultant had filed his final report on the Eckle firm ; DATE he submitted CARDINAL on the ORG company .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office had called on the applicant and his fellow accused to state by CARDINAL DATE whether they wanted a " final hearing " . This time - limit was extended on DATE , and Mr. PERSON subsequently replied affirmatively on DATE .

DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE , Mr. PERSON had challenged CARDINAL judges on ORG . After giving him an ultimate deadline until DATE to state his grounds , ORG rejected his challenges on DATE ; a subsequent appeal , for which he was granted extra time to put forward his reasons , was likewise dismissed on DATE .

On DATE , ORG decided to confirm the authorisation to serve the sentence passed on Mr. PERSON by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . An appeal lodged by Mr. PERSON on DATE , for which he had asked to be given until DATE to state his reasons , seems to have been unsuccessful .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office sent copies of files to counsel for the defence for inspection .

DATE , Mr. PERSON lodged several other applications and appeals whose purpose is not apparent from the same time he asked the competent authorities to grant him extensions of time in order to formulate the grounds for his applications .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office set the date of CARDINAL DATE for the " final hearing " of Mrs. PERSON and , pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , dropped the charges of fraud in a number of cases .

The hearing of Mrs. PERSON took place on DATE . On DATE , Mr. PERSON , acting through his defence counsel , waived his right to a " final hearing " , but on DATE his lawyer applied for CARDINAL , explaining that the waiver had been due to a misunderstanding . As on DATE the prison doctor expressed the opinion that the state of the applicant ’s health made him unfit to appear , the hearing was adjourned .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON sought an extension of time to submit reasons in support of a number of his appeals ; lodged CARDINAL fresh appeals against decisions of ORG ; and challenged the presiding judge of ORG . The time - limit originally allotted to him for stating his grounds for the challenge was to have expired on DATE , but ORG agreed to put the deadline back to DATE , then to DATE , to DATE and , finally , to DATE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON applied to ORG for Mr. PERSON ’s instructions to be withdrawn and for Mr. PERSON to be assigned as official defence counsel , and asked also for DATE leave of absence ( LOC ) ; these applications were refused on DATE . On DATE , his defence counsel asked ORG to discharge the warrant for his client ’s arrest ; ORG refused this request on DATE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON stated that he would not agree to attend the " final hearing " so long as Mr. PERSON remained responsible for his defence . Mr. PERSON , however , said on DATE that his client still wished to have such a hearing , but wanted first of all to confer with other defence counsel . He accordingly requested that the hearing should be postponed for DATE .

On DATE too , the prosecutor concerned set down DATE as the date for the hearing . On DATE he went to the prison where Mr. PERSON was being detained . Mr. PERSON , however , declared that he was unfit to undergo the hearing and unwilling to give an account of himself , whilst at the same time refusing to be examined by a medical expert .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office preferred the " bill of indictment " before ORG after deciding not to proceed with the charges in a large number of individual cases .

CARDINAL people , including the applicants , were " indicted " . The applicants were charged with fraudulent bankruptcy , tax evasion and fraud ; Mr. PERSON , alone or with others , was charged with the latter offence in CARDINAL cases , and Mrs. PERSON , alone or together with others , in CARDINAL cases . The " indictment " , which ran to CARDINAL pages , mentioned CARDINAL experts and CARDINAL witnesses . On CARDINAL and DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office filed with ORG CARDINAL volumes of appendices , various subsidiary files ( PERSON ) and experts’ reports .

The presiding judge of the Sixth ORG of ORG notified the parties concerned and their defence counsel of the " bill of indictment " on DATE and set a time - limit for the submission of any comments by them . Extensions of time were granted on several occasions , notably on DATE ; a final request for extension was , however , refused by ORG on DATE .

Having once more been in detention on remand since DATE under an arrest warrant issued by the appropriate GPE court , Mr. PERSON applied on DATE for his release from custody ; he was released on DATE .

On DATE , ORG transmitted the whole of the file to ORG , which had requested it on DATE ; the file was returned by ORG on DATE .

DATE previously , Mr. PERSON - of FAC - had requested ORG to appoint him officially as the applicant ’s defence counsel ; ORG rejected this request on DATE .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE , counsel for CARDINAL of the co - accused requested , inter alia , to have parts of the file and other documents made available to him for a short period . He also asked for variation of a DATE decision granting his client conditional release , for further inquiries and for a preliminary judicial examination ( GPE ) . The ORG allowed at least the penultimate application ( CARDINAL May and DATE ) . On DATE , the same lawyer submitted written pleadings , on which the consultant commented on DATE .

On DATE , the counsel who had made the applications of CARDINAL March , DATE and CARDINAL DATE discussed them with the responsible prosecutor , after which he withdrew the application of DATE The file on the case , which was at the public prosecutor ’s office , was returned to ORG .

In a note entered in the file on CARDINAL May , the presiding judge of ORG of ORG commented that the trial would probably last for DATE .

On DATE , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - accused , whose case had been severed from theirs , applied for the return of certain documents , but ORG refused this on DATE ; DATE and DATE he filed various other applications .

On DATE , ORG opened the trial proceedings ( GPE ) in respect of the applicants and the CARDINAL other persons who had been " indicted " with them , and notified them accordingly .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON requested ORG to discharge the warrants for his arrest which had been issued by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) ; these requests were refused on DATE .

Earlier , on DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office had informed ORG that cumulative sentences remained to be determined combining those passed by ORG of GPE and GPE , but that no decision could be taken for the time being as the file was with ORG for the purposes of an application lodged by Mr. PERSON .

On DATE , ORG inquired of the public prosecutor ’s offices in GPE and GPE whether , amongst other things , cumulative sentences had been determined in the meantime .

At the request of the public prosecutor ’s office ( DATE ) , ORG on DATE made an order , pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , discontinuing the proceedings against the applicants ; the latter had consented thereto .

At the same time , ORG revoked the arrest warrants mentioned above ( at paragraph CARDINAL ) and directed that the applicants should themselves meet their own expenses , while the court costs would be borne by the ORG .

In accordance with the public prosecutor ’s submissions , ORG did not award the applicants any compensation ; on DATE , it refused a subsequent request by Mr. PERSON and this decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

Following an order for separate trials , the prosecutions against CARDINAL of the CARDINAL co - accused were discontinued during the course of proceedings either in pursuance of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or for lack of adequate evidence or because of the intervening death of those concerned . The CARDINAL remaining co - accused were , for their part , sentenced by the relevant courts to various penalties DATE ; in their cases also , separate trial had been ordered .

The criminal prosecutions brought against Mr. and Mrs. PERSON in GPE are not in issue , but they need to be mentioned because of their bearing on the proceedings in GPE and GPE .

Towards DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office in GPE began a preliminary investigation in respect of the applicants . They were suspected of having defrauded clients in the PERSON in transactions of the kind that were later the subject of prosecutions in GPE and , in part , in GPE .

After being " indicted " with others in DATE , they were convicted by ORG on DATE on CARDINAL counts of fraud : Mr. PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and his wife to a term of DATE .

On petitions for review on a point of law , ORG quashed the convictions on DATE and remitted the case to another chamber of ORG .

On DATE , after DATE of hearings , the latter chamber sentenced Mrs. PERSON to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment on CARDINAL counts of fraud . Mr. PERSON , whose trial had had to be severed from his wife ’s , was convicted on DATE after hearings that had commenced on DATE ; ORG found him guilty on CARDINAL counts of fraud and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . A fresh petition for review on a point of law by the parties concerned was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

The sentences passed by ORG were combined on DATE with those imposed on DATE by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In the course of the proceedings against him Mr. PERSON spent DATE in detention on remand . The various courts placed reliance on a risk of his absconding and tampering with evidence .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is not represented before the ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents , may be summarised as follows .

A bank commenced an action against the applicant and her company , claiming repayment of loans . They contested the claim , arguing that the bank had agreed to extend the term of payment .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) of ORG sanctioned the claim and ordered the applicant and her company to repay the loans . They appealed .

On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) held an oral hearing during which the persons heard before FAC were reheard . During the hearing the applicant and her company argued that the ORG Judge PERSON was disqualified from deciding their case on the ground that he at the same time acted as a supervisor of the plaintiff bank . Commercial bank ORG duties within the bank ’s administration entail promoting and supervising a particular office ’s activities and acting as that office manager ’s supporting person .

ORG invited X to comment on the issue , which he did . According to X , he had acted as a supervisor of effectively the same bank since DATE . All the parties filed observations on X ’s comment .

By its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , rejecting the disqualification allegation , upheld the lower court ’s judgment . As to the alleged partiality it noted that the name of Judge PERSON , who ruled on the case in FAC , had been on the list of the plaintiff bank ’s supervisors until DATE . However , on DATE , i.e. prior to the case becoming pending , X informed the bank in writing that he would resign as a supervisor . ORG considered that the mere fact that in DATE X still remained on the list of supervisors did not call his objective impartiality into question . There was nothing to indicate his subjective partiality . The applicant and her company requested leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) granted them leave to appeal as far as the disqualification claim was concerned .

On DATE ORG ( decision no . DATE ) , having first noted that PERSON , despite his declaration of DATE , had acted as a supervisor for the bank until DATE and thus , at the time when he decided the present case , rejected the disqualification claim giving the following reasons :

“ A commercial bank supervisor can not be considered disqualified from deciding litigation where the bank in question is a party to the proceedings in light of LAW , LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Judicial Procedure .

In assessing whether a judge is disqualified , attention has to be paid also to the provisions of LAW and the case - law of ORG .

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal according to LAW . In light of ORG case - law , a judge must not hold a preconception or have a prejudged view of the case in question or have a desire to favour one of the parties’ interests ( subjective impartiality ) . In addition , all legitimate doubts as to the judge ’s impartiality must be eliminated ( objective impartiality ) . In assessing impartiality from the last - mentioned point of view , attention has to be paid to whether the judge ’s previous activities or his relations to the parties from an objective point of view give a party reason to believe that his impartiality is jeopardized .

In his comment to ORG stated that the credits in question had come to his knowledge when the case became pending . As he also had knowledge of also other claims related to a company previously run by the applicant and her husband which was being dissolved ... X had said in open court that the granting of additional loans to the same debtor caused him astonishment .

In their appeal the applicant and her company argued that the above statement showed that X had a certain bias with regard to the present case .

Having regard on the one hand to the contents of the statement and on the other to the issues in dispute , ORG considers that the statement is not a sufficient indication of X ’s personal bias or his desire to favour the bank ’s interests . Nor are there any other such indications . Accordingly , the allegation that X would have been partial from a subjective point of view is unfounded .

Commercial bank ORG position , duties or responsibility within the bank ’s administration are not based on the law . However , they are based on the statute approved by the bank ’s board of governors . According to the statute the ORG duty is to promote and supervise a particular branch ’s activities and act as that branch manager ’s supporting person .

If the judge deciding a litigation in addition to his or her regular post holds a position of trust and according to the description of that position has a relationship as mentioned above with the other party to the proceedings , this fact is likely to raise questions as to whether the judge ’s impartiality is jeopardized . According to the constant case - law of ORG , in assessing whether a judge is disqualified attention has to be paid to the impression given in the circumstances to an observer ( see the reasoning in the cases of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-XII and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-III , § CARDINAL and other authorities mentioned therein ) . Having regard to the above - mentioned paragraphs in particular and the fact that the litigation concerns the acts by the branch in question , the ORG duty description in the bank ’s statute contains features that may give an observer an objectively justified fear that the judge may have ties of loyalty to the bank or the office ’s management that jeopardize his impartiality .

The duties , obligations or expectations that attach to the ORG position are , however , not precise or strict . Also the remuneration is so modest that it can not as such be assumed to bring pressure to bear on the supervisors to render the bank or its branch special favours . The factual role of the supervisor and his or her possible ties to the bank and the branch ’s management in question thus depends to a large extent on the supervisor ’s individual attitude and may in practice be small or even non - existent .

DATE prior to the present case becoming pending , X already considered that the supervisor ’s position with regard to the office of a judge may be problematic in the eyes of an observer and bring about unnecessary fear of partiality . Therefore he informed the branch in question that he was no longer at the bank ’s disposal as a supervisor . However , from a formal point of view , ORG ’s position as supervisor ended at the end of the term . Having regard to the above concerning a supervisor ’s factual role , ORG considers that regard has to be paid to X ’s letter of resignation in assessing whether he was partial in deciding the present case . X resigned specifically with a view to preventing any suspicion as to his impartiality . His conduct has been such that he can be considered to have resigned from the position as a supervisor already when he left his letter of resignation and not when his term formally ended . In these circumstances X ’s ties to the bank and its office in question or its management can not be considered to be such at the time during which the present case has been pending that they warrant the conclusion that there is objectively justified suspicion as to his impartiality .

These reasons can warrant the conclusion that X was not disqualified from examining and deciding the present case ” .

ORG decision became a precedent ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

The afore - mentioned bank commenced another action against the applicant and her company , claiming repayment of loans . On DATE the ORG of Vakka - GPE sanctioned the claim and ordered the applicant and her company to repay the loans . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant and her company leave to appeal as far as the disqualification claim against X was concerned . By its judgment of DATE ( decision no . CARDINAL ) it rejected the disqualification claim on the same grounds as in the first set of proceedings .

LAW , LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) , as in force at the material time , provided in relevant part :

“ ... The following shall be the legal grounds for disqualification [ of a judge ] : when the judge is related by blood or marriage to CARDINAL or the other party in a manner where marriage is prohibited under LAW , including cousinship by blood although not by marriage ; when the judge is the opposing party or a public opponent of a party ; when the judge or his or her relative here listed has an interest in the case , when they stand to obtain particular benefit or suffer particular loss as a result of it ; when the judge has served as a judge in the case in another court ; when the judge has served as an advocate or a witness in the case ; or when the judge has previously , on the orders of a court , decided a part of the case ; or when the judge has a similar case pending before another court ... ”


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

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

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

The applicant is a follower of the PERSON movement .

Following a criminal conviction for robbery , the applicant began serving a DATE prison term on DATE in FAC .

During DATE he was transferred to LOC . On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG and on DATE he was transferred to FAC .

On DATE he was transferred back to ORG . He alleged that DATE and DATE he was placed in a cell without heating and that on DATE CARDINAL bottles of water were taken from him . On DATE the applicant was placed in a cell with smokers , although his doctor had recommended that he be placed in a non - smoking cell .

According to the applicant , he is a NORP but for DATE of his incarceration there was no possibility of receiving vegetarian meals in FAC . Furthermore , although the applicant was able to buy grains , oats and similar food from the prison canteen , he was not allowed to have a spoon , so he was unable to consume such food . The food provided to him by the prison authorities consisted almost entirely of carbohydrates .

Furthermore , he suffered from a cyst in his mouth and although surgery was recommended by a prison doctor , this recommendation has not yet been followed . The applicant submitted a medical certificate dated DATE showing that on DATE when he arrived in FAC he weighted QUANTITY but by DATE he weighed QUANTITY .

On DATE the applicant handed over a letter addressed to the ORG to a prison officer . On DATE he was told that letters had to be handed over unsealed . On DATE a copy of the ORG and registration details concerning his case pending before the ORG were taken from the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC . He alleges that upon arrival all his personal belongings were taken from him , including his glasses , contact lenses and the following golden jewellery : CARDINAL diamond earrings ; a necklace ; a diamond ring ; and a PERSON rosary with a swastika on it which he had previously been allowed to keep . When he attempted to ask for his glasses or contact lenses to be returned to him , CARDINAL prison guards took him out of the cell and hit and kicked him several times all over his body . Later on the same date , the applicant complained to the prison ’s medical personnel but they refused to provide him with any medical care . The applicant alleges that he complained about the incident to ORG but that no steps have been taken in relation to his complaint .

When a sentence - execution judge of ORG was visiting the prison , the applicant complained of his rosary being taken away from him . Her response was that his religious symbols were not allowed . When he later checked whether his golden jewellery was still in the prison safe , he discovered that his property was no longer there . He complained to ORG and on DATE received an answer that these objects had never been recorded as having been taken from him .

The applicant alleges that the prison authorities requested that he hand over all letters addressed to the ORG and to the national authorities unsealed .

The relevant provisions of ORG o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , ORG nos . ORG ) read as follows :

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

( CARDINAL ) NORP for judicial review shall be decided by the sentence - execution judge . ”

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge protects the rights of prisoners , supervises the legality of the execution of a prison term and ensures equality of prisoners before the law .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge takes acts and decides in respect of :

ORG review of [ ORG ] rights by deciding on appeals lodged against a decision of a prison governor in cases prescribed by this LAW ;

“ ( CARDINAL ) Proceedings before a sentence - execution judge are initiated at first instance upon a request by a party or by a judge and at second instance upon an appeal .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge acts so as to , according to basic principles , ensure the effective protection of the rights and interests of the prisoner concerned . ... The judge shall allow the parties to submit their observations about the facts [ presented by ] and allegations put forward by the opponent , and to present new facts and call for evidence .

( CARDINAL ) The parties to the proceedings are the prisoner and the prison or penal institution .

( CARDINAL ) A prisoner has the right to a lawyer of his or her own choice . Such a lawyer shall have qualifications required for a defence lawyer in criminal proceedings . When a prisoner does not ensure legal representation within TIME , the proceedings shall continue without legal representation .

( CARDINAL ) A prisoner may ask for a legal - aid lawyer when he does not have sufficient means to pay for legal representation and is not able to represent his own interests .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge may consult all official documents concerning a prisoner , pay a visit to the prison or penal institution concerned and establish the relevant facts in any other manner .

( CARDINAL ) A sentence - execution judge may hold a hearing in appropriate premises of a prison or penal institution . ”

“ A prisoner may lodge an appeal against decisions of a prison governor to a sentence - execution judge within DATE ... ”

( CARDINAL ) Parties to the proceedings , a prisoner ’s representative and the persons listed in LAW may lodge an appeal against a decision of a sentence - execution judge adopted at first instance ...

( CARDINAL ) The appeal shall be lodged with a sentence - execution judge , who shall immediately forward it to a judicial panel of a county court . That panel shall decide within DATE ... ”


Preliminary objections rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, estoppel);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-5;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Mr PERSON , who was born in GPE in DATE , was prosecuted in GPE by various public ORG offices and was also the subject of " preventive " proceedings ( prevenzione ) . Although the present case is not concerned with the prosecutions , some particulars should be given of CARDINAL of them ( which was started in GPE ) as it is bound up with the circumstances of this case .

ORG The applicant was arrested in DATE in connection with offences under the drugs legislation . On DATE , during the judicial investigation of his case , he was released subject to court supervision .

ORG On DATE , ORG sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , imposed a fine of MONEY and , as a security measure ( misura di sicurezza ) , made a supervision order to last for DATE .

ORG On DATE , at ORG request and pursuant to LAW , the same court in consequence revoked the applicant ’s release and issued a new arrest warrant on the ground that there was a risk that he would abscond .

On an application by PERSON and after concurring submissions had been made by ORG , ORG set aside the latter decision on DATE . It held that the revocation of the order made on DATE for the applicant ’s release was " unlawful " because it had not been included in the judgment whereby the applicant had been convicted and sentenced . As for the new warrant , it was " bad for lack of reasons " as neither the severity of the penalty imposed nor the fact that co - defendants had absconded amounted to a relevant and sufficient justification . On the first of these issues , ORG remitted the case to ORG ; no information as to any action taken by the latter court has been provided by those appearing in the present proceedings .

The applicant was immediately released .

ORG On DATE , ORG varied the judgment of DATE by reducing the sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY . On DATE , ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by Mr PERSON and held that an appeal on points of law by ORG was inadmissible .

ORG On CARDINAL and DATE , when the proceedings at first instance were drawing to an end ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Commissioner of Police ( questore ) and ORG in GPE asked ORG to order " special supervision " ( sorveglianza speciale ) of the applicant as a preventive measure and at the same time to prohibit him from residing in certain areas . They also sought ancillary orders of a financial nature , namely the seizure and confiscation of assets . In the first part of their application they relied on section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ; and in the second part , on PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE , ORG ( Sixth Division ) held an initial hearing but had to adjourn the proceedings owing to an irregularity in the service of some of the summonses .

The case was subsequently relisted for hearing on DATE . In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , the prosecution had amended its submissions ; it now sought a compulsory residence ( soggiorno obbligato ) order , likewise provided for in the DATE Law .

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing on DATE . As the prosecution ’s new submissions had to be communicated to him , the court again adjourned the case .

The hearing eventually took place on DATE , with Mr PERSON present , and at it the prosecution applied for Mr PERSON ’s arrest under section CARDINAL of the DATE Law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The president of ORG granted the application and PERSON was taken into custody at FAC that DATE .

In order to establish that there were " particularly serious grounds " within the meaning of section CARDINAL , the prosecution had cited , among other things , the heavy sentence already imposed by the same court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The president ’s decision was couched in the following terms ( translated from the NORP ) :

" The president of ORG ,

Having regard to ORG application of CARDINAL DATE for PERSON to be taken into custody under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ,

Noting that an application has been made for an order requiring PERSON to reside in a specified locality and that there are particularly serious grounds for this measure , namely all the evidence set forth in the application of the Commissioner of Police and ORG and the recent sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and fine of MONEY imposed on [ PERSON ] for serious drug offences ; that PERSON , a person suspected of belonging to ORG - type associations , is shown by all the evidence in the file to be deeply involved in illegal international drug - trafficking ; and that it thus appears on present evidence and for the purpose of this order sufficiently proved that he constitutes a danger to society ; and having regard further to ORG submissions in support of his application ,

For these reasons , having regard to section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ,

ORDERS

that PERSON , born in GPE on DATE , shall be held in custody in FAC until the decision to be taken in the present proceedings becomes enforceable .

Counsel for Mr PERSON immediately applied for the provisional release of his client , but the court reserved its decision on this application .

ORG On DATE , the Sixth ORG the court ordered that the applicant should be restricted to a specified place of residence for DATE , under LAW , and that some of his assets should be confiscated .

On DATE , the police took Mr PERSON to a small town in the province of GPE . He remained there only until DATE , when he was arrested under a warrant issued by the investigating judge of GPE in connection with other proceedings .

ORG The applicant is currently serving the sentence passed on him by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( " the DATE Law " ) enables preventive measures to be taken against " persons presenting a danger to safety and public morals " . That PERSON is summarised in its essentials in the PERSON judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , and it will accordingly suffice to cite here only section CARDINAL , as amended by Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( translated from the NORP ) :

" If the application [ for a preventive measure ] is for an order for compulsory residence in a specified locality , the presiding judge of ORG , during the procedure ... , may , where there are particularly serious grounds , make a reasoned order ( provvedimento motivato ) that the applicant be held in prison until the preventive measure has become final .

At the same time as it makes the order for compulsory residence in a specified locality , the court shall order that [ the person concerned ] be taken by the police from the prison in which he is being held to the place of compulsory residence and handed over to the local police authorities . "

Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( " the DATE Law " ) , as amended in DATE , supplements the DATE Law with procedural and substantive rules ( applicable both to persons and to property ) directed against individuals whom there are reasons to suspect of belonging to ORG - type associations . Its provisions do not have any bearing on section CARDINAL of the DATE Law ( see also the PERSON judgment previously cited , p. CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ) .

ORG Since the events in this case , the DATE and DATE Laws have been amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . Under this PERSON it is no longer possible to hold a person in custody while an application for a compulsory residence order is being considered , and such an order must henceforth be executed in the locality in which he is resident or ordinarily resident ( comune di residenza o di dimora abituale ) . Section CARDINAL of the DATE Law now reads as follows ( translated from the NORP ) :

" CARDINAL . If the application is for special supervision together with a compulsory residence order or an exclusion order , the presiding judge of ORG , during the procedure ... , may make an order ( decreto ) for the temporary withdrawal of the person ’s passport and for the suspension of the validity of any equivalent document allowing the holder to leave the country .

Where there are particularly serious grounds , he may also direct that a temporary compulsory residence or exclusion order should be made against the person concerned until the preventive measure has become final . "

ORG According to documents produced by those appearing before the ORG , the NORP courts - ORG , the ordinary first - instance and appellate courts and the administrative courts - have given a number of decisions concerning the status of the Convention in GPE ’s domestic legal order , into which it was incorporated by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .

With CARDINAL exception - a judgment of CARDINAL DATE of a full court of ORG ( ORG , III , cols . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) - , these decisions have not recognised that the ORG has any constitutional status . Furthermore , the courts concerned do not seem to have had any opportunity to state whether , as certain legal scholars maintain , the LAW ranks midway between the LAW and ordinary statutes , that is to say whether it prevails even over statutes enacted after the LAW was ratified by GPE .

ORG As regards more particularly LAW , the Government produced the texts of CARDINAL decisions , but none of them bore on the DATE Law .

Firstly , there were CARDINAL judgments of ORG . These variously cited a passage from a Commission report ( ORG , DATE , PERSON case ) , drew attention to the Convention ’s usefulness as an interpretative instrument ( full court , DATE , PERSON case ) and ruled that there had been no breach of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ( ORG , DATE , ORG case , and CARDINAL DATE , ORG ) .

To these were added CARDINAL judgments of the GPE ORG relating to paragraph CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The first of these ( DATE ) gave no decision on compensation because the court held there had been no breach of paragraph CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ( PERSON case , PERSON , I , cols . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ; in the second of them ( DATE ) , on the other hand , the court awarded the plaintiff compensation ( ORG case , Temi Romana DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

Following the submission of his tax declaration for DATE investigations were carried out by the tax authorities in respect of certain income allegedly obtained in GPE at a time when the applicant also obtained unemployment benefits in GPE . It appears that the police were informed of the situation on DATE whereas it does not appear from the file whether or to what extent the applicant was aware of any police investigations at that moment in time . In DATE it appears that the applicant was questioned by the police about his alleged employment by a NORP company in DATE .

By indictment of DATE ( amended on DATE ) the applicant was charged with fraud , pursuant to LAW ( straffeloven ) , for having wrongfully informed ORG ( NORP Arbejdsløshedskasse ) that he was unemployed in the period from DATE until DATE although he was in fact employed in GPE , thereby causing ORG a loss in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) . He was also charged with tax evasion , pursuant to LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( GPE ) , for not having informed GPE ( ORG ) of income obtained in GPE in DATE , thereby causing the tax authorities a loss in the amount of CARDINAL ORG . Finally , he was charged with theft pursuant to LAW for having stolen CARDINAL plastic bags containing items with an assessed value totalling CARDINAL DKK . The latter charge concerned an offence allegedly committed in DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested the Chief of Police of Gentofte ( GPE i ORG ) to undertake certain investigatory measures relating to his alleged contract of employment with the company in GPE . The Chief of Police replied on DATE . On DATE the applicant maintained that further investigations were necessary whereas it appears that the police considered that the case was ready for adjudication . Therefore , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested ORG ( PERSON ) to request the NORP authorities to assist in clarifying whether any evidence existed that could substantiate the prosecution ’s allegation that the applicant had been working in GPE during the period in question . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Chief of Police submitted to the court that he found the requested measures to be without relevance to the case . It appears that a court session was held on DATE following which the applicant requested an adjournment in order to have certain factual points clarified . The applicant submitted further requests for investigations by letter of CARDINAL DATE .

The trial subsequently commenced in ORG . The applicant , represented by counsel , and CARDINAL witnesses , including the witnesses PERSON and PERSON , were heard . Following an evaluation of the available evidence ORG found the applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and by judgment of DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine in the amount of CARDINAL ORG . The prison sentence was suspended on the condition that no further criminal act would be committed by the applicant within DATE from delivery of judgment . The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the case amounting to CARDINAL ORG .

The applicant as well as the prosecution appealed against the judgment to ORG of Eastern GPE ( PERSON ) . During the proceedings before ORG it appears that the applicant raised the issue of further investigative measures to be taken by the police .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted , inter alia , that a request be made to ORG for a preliminary ruling pursuant to LAW . ORG Statsadvokaten for Sjælland

On DATE the applicant requested ORG for leave to appeal against ORG decision to ORG ( Højesteret ) . On DATE the prosecutor submitted the file and his observations to the Ministry . On DATE the applicant submitted his observations and requested that the examination of his request for leave to appeal be adjourned until he had obtained a statement from an expert in Community Law .

On DATE the ORG fixed a time - limit of DATE for the applicant ’s final observations . On DATE the applicant requested an extension of the time - limit in order to obtain the NORP copy of a judgment from ORG . Accordingly , on DATE the ORG fixed a time - limit of DATE for the applicant ’s final observations . On DATE the applicant submitted his observations , inter alia , referring to a judgment pronounced by ORG on DATE . On DATE the ORG requested the prosecutor to comment on the applicant ’s submissions . On DATE the prosecutor ’s comments were sent to the applicant who replied on DATE . The applicant submitted additional comments on DATE .

On DATE , on the basis of the above - mentioned observations , the ORG rejected his request for leave to appeal against the decision of ORG of DATE .

Thereafter the criminal case against the applicant continued in ORG . On DATE and DATE the applicant requested ORG to hear a number of witnesses , including GPE and PERSON On DATE ORG allowed the hearing of GPE and PERSON but dismissed the other evidence proposed as it found that this evidence was of no relevance for the determination of the case . The applicant applied for leave to appeal against this decision . However , on DATE ORG ( Procesbevillingsnævnet ) rejected the applicant ’s request .

The criminal case was subsequently heard in ORG . The applicant and CARDINAL witnesses , including PERSON and PERSON , were heard . On the basis of the evidence presented ORG upheld ORG of Gentofte ’s judgment on DATE . The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the case before ORG amounting to CARDINAL ORG , including CARDINAL DKK in counsel ’s fees .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal against ORG judgment to ORG .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

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

From CARDINAL DATE ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) paid the applicant an invalidity pension based on a bilateral agreement between GPE and GPE ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) and informed him that he was to disclose any changes in his address as the pension entitlement depended on him continuing to reside in GPE .

On DATE ORG received an anonymous letter that the applicant had transferred his domicile to GPE and that he only travelled to GPE to receive his pension .

On DATE ORG asked the applicant whether his permanent domicile was in GPE or in GPE , but the applicant failed to provide the required information .

On DATE the NORP registration office ( PERSON ) informed ORG that since CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been domiciled in Bydgoszcz .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant of its intention to cease the payment of the invalidity pension as of DATE . Moreover , it ordered him to reimburse the payments effected between CARDINAL DATE and DATE amounting to some DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL . ORG served its decision on the applicant ’s address in GPE . The applicant ’s wife acknowledged receipt of the decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision . He alleged inter alia that he had not received the decision as he no longer lived with his wife .

On DATE , relying on the information provided by the ORG registration office about the applicant ’s domicile , ORG rejected the administrative appeal .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG to have the decision of ORG annulled .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to hear CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the ORG heard those witnesses . The applicant , although he had been informed of the hearing , did not appear .

On DATE the applicant lodged his application before the ORG .

On DATE the applicant received ORG summons to the hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG held the hearing , which the applicant did not attend , and dismissed the applicant ’s action , arguing that he had acted with gross negligence .

The judgment was served on the applicant by post .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the ORG requested the applicant to inform the ORG about the outcome of the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the ORG received the applicant ’s letter in which he , without further comments , submitted a copy of ORG judgment .

On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the judgment of ORG had not yet become final as the applicant had not returned the acknowledgment of the judgment ’s receipt to ORG .

This bilateral agreement establishes that persons who moved to GPE by DATE could receive their pension from a NORP insurance company . The agreement applies only as long as the pensioner has his domicile in GPE .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW administrative appeals and actions for annulment have suspensive effect . Administrative acts may only be enforced if they have become final or if legal remedies to challenge these acts have no suspensive effect .

The NORP law does not provide for a party to pay interest in cases where he or she is found liable to reimburse unlawfully obtained pension payments .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action for damages against CARDINAL individuals . ORG decisions concerning the applicant 's obligation to pay court fees and the appointment of a legalaid lawyer to the applicant were examined by ORG for DATE .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . The latter was served on the applicant on DATE and thus became final .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant 's right under LAW to a hearing without unjustified delay . It held that the case was not complex and that the applicant 's conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings . It awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) , which was the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at that time in respect of non - pecuniary damage and ordered ORG to proceed without further delay . It also ordered ORG to reimburse the applicant 's legal costs by paying SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the lawyer . The amount corresponded to CARDINAL of the sum claimed by the applicant .

On DATE ORG declared another complaint inadmissible . The complaint was lodged on DATE and delivered to ORG on DATE . To the extent the applicant alleged that his right of access to a court had been violated , the view was expressed that the applicant had not exhausted the available remedies as he had not lodged an appeal on points of law . ORG further rejected the applicant 's length of proceedings complaint . That finding was based on ORG long established practice to examine length of proceedings complaints only when proceedings were still pending at the moment when a constitutional complaint was lodged .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .

GPE , GPE – for a provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) for the purpose of joining her partner in the GPE , with whom she has a ( minor ) child . By decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s request was denied by the Minister of ORG . The applicant was deemed a threat to public order given her conviction by the single - judge chamber of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE in DATE for theft in association with CARDINAL or more persons , for which offence she had been sentenced to payment of a fine of LAW . The Minister also considered that this refusal did not violate the applicant ’s right to respect for family life as guaranteed by LAW given the fact that it had been the applicant ’s own doing that had led to her conviction and no insurmountable obstacles could be found preventing the applicant and her family from living their family life outside the GPE .

NORP By decision of CARDINAL DATE the Minister dismissed the applicant ’s objection ( bezwaar ) against the above mentioned decision . The Minister had regard to the fact that ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE had upheld the applicant ’s conviction for theft in association with CARDINAL or more persons in DATE and had only reduced the fine to LAW . Furthermore , taking into account the principles set out in the ORG ’s judgments in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE and PERSON v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-XII , the Minister considered that the applicant ’s right to respect for family life had not been violated .

NORP The applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by ORG of The GPE by decision of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of the Minister was subsequently quashed . ORG considered that the Minister had not weighed the ( lack of ) seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant in an appropriate manner .

NORP The Minister lodged a further appeal with ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ; hereafter “ the ORG ” ) . By decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG upheld the Minister ’s further appeal , quashed the judgment of ORG on the applicant ’s appeal and rejected that appeal . The ORG held that the authorities had struck a fair balance between all interests involved and that there had been no infringement of the applicant ’s right to respect for family life . Also on DATE , the judgment of the ORG was sent to the lawyer who had represented the applicant pursuant to LAW ( PERSON ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with the ORG . He claimed that the defendants had lost the right to use a flat .

The first hearing in the case was held on DATE .

On DATE , on the applicant 's complaint , ORG found a violation of LAW in respect of the length of the above proceedings . It noted that the case was not complex . The applicant 's conduct had partially contributed to their duration at the initial stage in that he had not paid the court fees at the time of filing the action . ORG was responsible for delays totalling DATE . ORG awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at that time ) as just satisfaction . It also ordered ORG to reimburse the applicant 's legal costs and to proceed with the case speedily .

On DATE ORG found against the applicant .

The Košice Regional Court , on appeal , quashed the judgment on DATE and remitted the case to ORG .

ORG asked the defendants and the applicant to submit information and invited several doctors to indicate whether the defendants ' state of health would allow them to attend a hearing . A hearing was held in DATE at which the applicant requested a modification of his action . His request was subsequently rejected .

ORG found against the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . After having been served on the parties to the proceedings , the decision became final on DATE .