David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

CARDINAL .

NORP The applicant moved to ORG DATE , as she was no longer able to take care of her needs in her own home . PERSON was owned and managed by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , acting under its duties pursuant to LAW DATE and the ORG and LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) .

DATE and DATE , the ORG carried out a consultation on the future of ORG . The consultation included a meeting with residents , families and carers held at ORG in DATE , attended by CARDINAL residents / carers ; face - to - face interviews with residents and their families in DATE ; a stakeholder event on DATE which was attended by CARDINAL people , including representatives of the ORG 's Over CARDINALs Forum , the Older People 's ORG , Age Concern , the Alzheimer 's ORG , ORG and ORG ; and general advertisement of the consultation procedure and seeking of public views , which resulted in DATE written submissions .

NORP The subsequent report on the future of PERSON explained the background for the consultation exercise and the need for a re - assessment of care home provision in the area :

“ The DATE cost of a bed in FAC is PERCENT higher than the cost of a residential care bed in the independent sector . This difference in cost is not related to a commensurate difference in quality and it is not , therefore , possible to demonstrate that ORG provides value for money . The resources available for funding social care services in GPE are reducing . As a result there is a need to ensure that expenditure is contained within the reduced resources available . The impact of this , in terms of the need to actually withdraw services , can be lessened if opportunities can be found to continue to provide services to the same number of people but at a lower cost . The replacement of residential care places , run directly by the ORG , with places purchased in independent sector homes offers such an opportunity .

ORG was built DATE and , consequently does not meet the physical space standards set out in ORG , established by legislation . These standards ( relating to room size and en - suite facilities ) are currently only applied to new homes and those where the terms of registration are being varied . There is consequently no immediate requirement for ORG to meet these standards , but it has always been intended that eventually these requirements will apply to all care homes . It is estimated that it would cost MONEY to make the necessary alterations . Even if no requirement is introduced , expenditure on such alterations can only be avoided if the home remains unchanged for the foreseeable future . This would mean that , in the longer term , the home would be unable to respond to the changing needs and expectations of current and future users . If work were undertaken to achieve the increased room sizes within the current building , it would be necessary to reduce the number of rooms by CARDINAL . This would increase unit costs to a level that would make the home financially unviable . ”

NORP The report identified a number of key themes :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ...

Concern that closure would mean separation from other service users , with whom friendships have been established .

Concern about the loss of relationships established with staff and the potential loss of employment for those staff .

Fears that alternative homes may not be as good or be too far away from friends and family .

Concern about the detrimental effect of the upheaval of moving on residents , particularly those with dementia .

Appreciation of the high quality of care in the home .

A view that savings could be made in other ways , without impacting on vulnerable people .

A suggestion that existing residents should be allowed to remain , but that all new permanent admissions should be stopped , thus allowing the home to be gradually run down ( perhaps using vacancies for temporary respite stays ) .

A view that current residents found the existing size of their rooms and the bathroom facilities satisfactory .

A view that ORG should not be closed until plans to develop very sheltered housing in vicinity are in place . ”

NORP The report considered all available options , including retention of the home , closure of the home , retention of the home until replacement very sheltered housing was available in the area , disposal of the home as a going concern to an external provider , and retention of the home for the lifetime of existing residents . As regards retention of the home , the report noted that :

“ ... this would entail foregoing the opportunity to make savings and obtain better value for money through the provision of alternative placements for residents in other homes . At some point in the future , the home will be required to meet the new space standards , which will involve substantial expenditure and significantly reduce capacity and cost effectiveness . ”

As to the closure option , the report stated :

“ This would enable savings to be made , while still providing a service to residents through alternative placements , and be in line with the strategic direction for older people 's services . It would , however , cause distress to current service users and their families . ”

NORP The report concluded :

“ CARDINAL It is proposed that :

ORG be closed .

Current residents and their families be provided with intensive support to help them find alternative placements which meet their needs and prepare them for the transition ( initial assessments suggest that CARDINAL residents may now require nursing home care ) . Each resident 's needs will be individually assessed , in consultation with their families , and involving other professionals , where appropriate , to ensure that they have a personalised care plan designed to minimise any adverse impact . Reviews of research evidence by Professors Burn[s ] and ORG have shown that careful , individualised planning of moves to alternative care settings can mitigate against the negative effects of the change .

Arrangements are made to enable friendship groups to move together to an alternative home . ”

The report further noted :

“ CARDINAL An assessment has been undertaken , which identified the need to reduce the impact of closure on service users by ensuring that careful , individualised care planning is undertaken for each resident to minimise any distress and disruption caused in moving to another establishments . Each service user and their carer will be provided with intensive support and a range of information on the availability of places in other homes in GPE , including making visits prior to reaching a decision . Where necessary advocates will be provided and the service user , and their carers , will be fully engaged in the process of their move , paying particular attention to their wishes , feelings and addressing cultural differences . ”

The views of residents , families and carers as expressed in the face - to - face interviews conducted in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were summarised in a table annexed to the report .

NORP In a separate appendix to the report , a summary of the meeting with residents , staff and carers at FAC was provided . The summary noted :

“ There are several friendship groups in ORG and family members asked about the possibility of moving residents together in small groups . They were told that even if we do n't currently have CARDINAL places together , if there are CARDINAL in the home they want to move to we will hold the vacancies until we can move them all together . ”

On DATE , ORG ( the ORG 's decision - making body ) approved the recommendation to close ORG .

NORP The decision was subsequently called in for further scrutiny by ORG . The scope of the scrutiny was confined to determining “ what efforts had been made to find a site and funding for a very sheltered scheme in the local area ” . On DATE ORG considered the decision of ORG and , after hearing from the Director for ORG , resolved to take no further action .

The applicant 's solicitor instructed a medical report from Professor PERSON , a consultant psychiatrist , in order to assess the potential effects of any transfer on the applicant 's health . The report of CARDINAL DATE noted as follows :

“ In view of her extreme old age , PERSON current life expectancy is very limited DATE probably CARDINAL - CARDINAL years . It is however difficult to estimate individual life expectancy with any certainty . ”

As to the possible risks of any transfer to the applicant 's life , the report continued :

“ Despite extensive research in the area there is no conclusive evidence that , overall , mortality is increased if people in residential care are transferred ... There is however evidence that some people are at particular risk ... and that mortality is significantly increased in such individuals . Risk factors cited by ORG ( DATE ) which are positive in PERSON case include

- confusion

- incontinence

- poor mobility

In the light of this I would conclude that on the balance of probabilities PERSON already short life expectancy is likely to be reduced by PERCENT if she is moved from ORG where she has lived happily for DATE . The research summarised by FAC ( DATE ) suggests that this risk is likely to be mitigated somewhat by preparation and if she were moved together with other residents with whom she has made particularly close friendships . Such preparation is regarded as good practice by most ORG . ”

The report concluded :

“ PERSON has limited life expectancy .

The ideal outcome for PERSON would in my view be for her to remain at ORG for the rest of her life .

If however a move is unavoidable , the key issues to ensure would be

- moving ' en bloc ' with her closest friends

- continued accessibility for the very frequent visits that add significantly to the quality of her life ... ”

On DATE the applicant 's solicitor sent the ORG a letter before claim and warned that she would apply for an injunction if any steps were taken to move the applicant from ORG . The ORG replied to the letter on DATE , refuting the applicant 's claim and requesting further details of the applicant 's Convention complaints . The ORG further disputed the need for interim remedies and provided an undertaking in the following terms :

“ a ) We will not seek to move any of the named residents who remain at ORG prior to completion of their individual care plan ;

b ) The number of staff retained will be sufficient to address the needs of the residents then present . ”

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for permission to seek judicial review of the decision to close ORG and for an order for interim relief to prevent steps being taken to implement the ORG 's decision of DATE to close ORG , including redeploying or making redundant any of its staff and moving any of the residents without a prior report from an expert psychiatrist confirming that the move presented no risk to the resident 's health or life . She relied on ORG , DATE and DATE of the Convention .

In her statement of facts and grounds , the following was stated :

“ PERSON is an intelligent lady who knows that the Defendant has made a decision to close her care home . However , she is unable to remember details such as what she ordered for lunch DATE . Her memory is insufficient for her to retain and weigh up competing options . On a number of occasions , she asks about the welfare of a family member , who has been dead for DATE ...

PERSON has resided at ORG for DATE , as she was unable to look after her needs at home and had broken her hip . The nature of her disability is such that she needs CARDINAL-hour oversight and supervision , and would not be able to look after herself in , for example , very sheltered accommodation .

PERSON has sufficient understanding to say to her son that she thinks it would ' drive [ her ] mad if she moves ' and has expressed that her desire is to stay at her care home . ”

On DATE , the request for interim relief came before ORG , which expressed concern about the width and vagueness of the order sought and the evidential basis for the application . No order for interim relief was made , following the ORG 's confirmation that there were no immediate plans to move the remaining residents and that none would be moved pending the determination of the application for permission to seek judicial review . A further attempt was made by the applicant to seek interim relief in the form of a prohibition on staff movements . The application was refused .

On DATE , judicial review of the decision to close the applicant 's care home was refused on the papers on the ground that it was an attempt to re - litigate points run and lost in other cases ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Further , Judge PERSON noted that the complaints were not sustainable on the facts and were unsupported by the medical evidence supplied .

On DATE , ORG granted an interim injunction to prevent residents being moved before the hearing of the renewed application for judicial review on DATE .

On DATE , Judge PERSON in the ORG refused permission for judicial review at a renewed hearing . The applicant lodged an appeal . It would appear that the injunction was extended to prevent transfer prior to the decision on the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the ORG gave an undertaking in the following terms :

“ The ORG confirms that in each individual case it will assess–

a ) whether moving the applicant presents a risk of death or to health ;

b ) if there is a risk in being moved , whether or how might that risk be managed . That assessment will take place in the context of section CARDINAL ORG DATE assessment . ”

On DATE and on the basis of the ORG 's undertaking , ORG refused permission to appeal the refusal to grant leave and discharged the injunction . ORG noted that :

“ CARDINAL . PERSON report on PERSON is dated DATE . We know now that on DATE he e - mailed Miss PERSON a covering message for the report , which read as follows :

' I look forward to your comments as to whether any amendments or clarifications are necessary . As you will see I am not convinced that the outcome of a move would be so bad for some of [ the residents ] . '

In response to [ a ] request by email from Miss PERSON for further information he wrote :

' I was also quite surprised at what I found . I think the people I saw were relatively well ( mentally in particular ) , were well supported by family and in particular were quite aware of the possibility of moving and pretty laid back about it . '

Miss PERSON confirms to us that the phrase ' the people I saw ' included PERSON . Read together with the report , it is clear that , while it is in no way a licence to be less than extremely careful about PERSON welfare in any move , it does not predict harm to her from a move . ”

Sedley LJ accordingly concluded that :

“ CARDINAL . For my part , I am unable to see any viable ground on which this court can grant permission to appeal against Judge PERSON 's decision not to give permission to apply for judicial review . If there were any firm evidence that moving PERSON was going to shorten her life , the decision would be quite different . It would be nothing to the point that she had already enjoyed a long and active life . PERSON , like everybody else , is entitled to the full benefit of DATE that still remains to her .

But when CARDINAL reads PERSON report with the accompanying messages that I have quoted , it is evident that there is no reason why PERSON [ LOC ' move ] to a new care home , provided it is properly managed , should do her any appreciable harm . ”

As to the management of the move , ORG commented :

“ CARDINAL . Is there then any reason in the evidence before us to suppose that it will not be properly managed ? ORG has made it clear that it is well aware of its legal duty towards its residents . Although it was not adequately spelt out in initial correspondence , it has more than once now undertaken in open court to conduct individual assessments , so far as these have not already been made , so that the move of each resident can be tailored to his or her own needs and own medical condition . That undertaking was given to PERSON when he was asked for an injunction and was given again to PERSON when she considered the application for permission to seek judicial review .

We also now have the council 's equalities impact assessment , a document which , although only disclosed DATE , can be seen on examination to have been the source of the greater part of what was set out in the report to cabinet which was the foundation of the decision to close the home ...

Among the tabulated information which has been gathered are the individual care plans of residents , the contents of the consultation process and the views of residents and relatives following face - to - face interviews by the assessment team ... ”

He noted that the assessment included findings as to possible adverse impacts and steps which could be taken to reduce or eliminate those adverse impacts . Referring to the ORG 's undertaking that it would not move any resident before an individual impact assessment had been conducted , he concluded :

“ CARDINAL . Thus , as it seems to me , the plans for relocating the residents of ORG meet the concerns expressed by PERSON . So long as those concerns are met , PERSON own evidence indicates no risk of undue harm to the residents , who are to be moved DATE this needs to be remembered DATE from an unsuitable home to a home better equipped for their needs .

For those reasons , it seems to me that the HHJ Kirkham and PERSON were both right to refuse permission to apply for judicial review . For the same reasons , it seems to me that an appeal to this court would have no realistic prospect of success . In short , the council proposes , as it has done throughout , to take individualised measures to ensure , so far as humanly possible , that neither PERSON nor any of her fellow residents is distressed or harmed in any way by the move from CARDINAL care home to another . That is all that anyone can ask . ”

Following the court 's decision , the applicant 's solicitor contacted Professor PERSON on DATE seeking clarification of the email cited by ORG in his judgment . She wrote :

“ ... ORG DATE took [ your ] email to imply that there was no risk to PERSON in the involuntary transfer from ORG to another home .

Could you please confirm whether or not you meant to imply ... that there would be no risk to health or of early mortality to PERSON if she was moved involuntarily from ORG . ”

Professor PERSON replied :

“ I am surprised to hear that .

My comments applied to the group of people I had seen on DATE . It did not apply to PERSON . ”

He referred to the findings of his report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , also cited by ORG in his judgment .

The applicant was transferred from ORG to ORG , QUANTITY away , on DATE , together with CARDINAL of her friends .

An ORG relating to the applicant and dated CARDINAL DATE summarised the applicant 's health details and her needs . It noted that she received regular visits from her sons and daughters - in - law but that she did not sleep well and worried about her children . It further noted that she sometimes became distressed about changes to her routine and was anxious about the changes proposed at ORG . ORG report , also dated DATE , recorded that in the event of a breakdown of the placement , the applicant would require an alternative residential placement for physically frail older people .

In a letter dated DATE to another resident of ORG , the ORG noted :

“ The process of undertaking the assessments has continued and nears completion . While it is regrettable that not all family members wished to co - operate with the assessment process , we have been able to use the full assessments that were completed DATE and update them through the wide variety of sources of information that are currently used to support and meet your care needs .

Within DATE , these will be complete and will identify where your care needs will continue to be met and how the process of transfer will be managed taking into [ account ] your needs identified in the assessment . The social workers responsible for your assessment will work alongside the staff at ORG to discuss the assessments and their outcome with you and how moves can be supported . ”

By letter of DATE , the ORG advised the applicant 's solicitor that it was undertaking an assessment of each resident in accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG LAW DATE . The letter continued :

“ These assessments include assessments as to whether moving each resident presents a risk of death or to health and if there is a risk in being moved , whether or how that risk might be managed .

The Reports of PERSON on the residents obtained in the course of the judicial review proceedings are also being used to inform these assessments . ”

The letter concluded :

“ The ORG does not agree to the assessments being carried out by a consultant in the psychiatry of old age as suggested in your letter . As set out above , assessments are being undertaken in accordance with statutory provisions and the ORG 's undertaking given to ORG on DATE . I confirm any risks identified in assessments will be addressed before the residents move . ”

On DATE , an FAC report on the applicant was prepared . It noted the frequent visits of the applicant 's sons and daughters - in - law and the fact that the applicant enjoyed being around other people and did not like to be alone . As regards care plan proposals , the report noted :

“ ORG will provide support and assistance to enable PERSON to select an alternative provider of care .

PERSON has been provided with a list of suitable homes within a QUANTITY radius of PERSON house . She has also been offered a free advocacy service provided by Age Concern . She has been given information and advice on financial considerations and offered ORG [ ORG ] reports on any homes that she may be interested in .

Mr LOC ( son ) has been advised that we will offer transport to view the homes and staff to accompany her . He has also been advised that we will endeavour to place her within the area of her choice and with her CARDINAL friends from the home if possible . Mr LOC has advised us that he would like all residents to be able to move together to a nearby home in GPE if possible . I have agreed to put this option forward to be considered .

PERSON will also be offered a memory book of PERSON and its residents and a leaving party when the time comes for moving .

PERSON has been offered a bed at the ORG dual registered home , along with her CARDINAL friends . This was the nearest home that the whole friendship group could move to together and is QUANTITY from PERSON house . As there are no residential vacancies at present and PERSON requires a high level of care , she will initially move to a nursing bed at a cost of £ MONEY DATE . An assessment has been requested by the PCT for the funded nursing contribution . If nursing level care is not required on an ongoing basis , then PERSON will be offered the next available residential bed . PERSON will not pay a top up but will continue to pay the same assessed contribution as she pays at ORG . Her family have been advised to view the home and arrangements have been made for PERSON to visit if she wants to . ”

The intended outcome of the care plan was to :

“ ... provide an alternative residential placement for PERSON that meets her needs and maximises her choice and quality of lifestyle . To minimise the risk from falls and tissue damages by ensuring that TIME care and support are provided . ”

NORP The options considered were described in the report and included the following :

“ Due to her recent tissue deterioration , a nursing home placement has been considered but both ORG and district nurses feel that at present her needs can be met in residential care and would not be improved by a move to a nursing home . A dual registered home may be a suitable option if she views such a home that she likes . PERSON needs will continue to be monitored closely up until the placement is made to ensure that she is placed in the most suitable environment .

After discussion with ... [ the ] Team Manager on DATE it was felt that as PERSON condition is stable , ... she should remain at PERSON for the short term . ”

The report also identified moving and handling issues , noting that following a fall , the applicant 's mobility was reduced such that she required CARDINAL people and a frame to transfer . It further noted that her condition appeared to have stabilised in DATE preceding the report .

The report recorded that the applicant preferred to stay at ORG , and if she had to move preferred to stay in GPE . It noted that her family wished her to remain in the area to facilitate visits and that her son wanted her to move with other residents of ORG if possible .

An Adult Full Review dated DATE noted the following :

“ As PERSON was closing PERSON moved to the ORG nursing home on CARDINAL along with CARDINAL other residents . Initially she settled well but has had TIME where she has n't slept and has become agitated at times . She continues to need encouragement to eat but has maintained her weight ... She is now able to walk short distances with assistance .

On DATE a safeguarding investigation was raised as bruises were noted on both of PERSON 's lower arms . The cause can not be determined but it may be due to poor handling and the fact that PERSON bruises easily . As PERSON has reported that she is happy at the home it was felt appropriate to close the safeguarding . PERSON has stated ' I like it here ' . She said the food was good and the staff were kind . When asked if she wanted to consider moving PERSON stated ' I do n't want to move again ' . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides :

“ ... a local authority may with the approval of the Secretary of ORG , and to such extent as he may direct shall , make arrangements for providing—

( a ) residential accommodation for persons aged DATE or over who by reason of age , illness , disability or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them ... ”

Under section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act :

“ In making any such arrangements a local authority shall have regard to the welfare of all persons for whom accommodation is provided , and in particular to the need for providing accommodation of different descriptions suited to different descriptions of such persons as are mentioned in the last foregoing subsection . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG LAW DATE provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ... where it appears to a local authority that any person for whom they may provide or arrange for the provision of community care services may be in need of any such services , the authority—

( a ) shall carry out an assessment of his needs for those services ; and

( b ) having regard to the results of that assessment , shall then decide whether his needs call for the provision by them of any such services . ”

A number of reports have been prepared by experts in the area . Relevant extracts of a selection of reports cited in domestic proceedings are set out below .

In DATE , Professor PERSON published an article entitled “ Relocation of the Elderly : ORG ” . The article , a review of CARDINAL studies into relocation of the elderly , concluded as follows :

“ In summary , we show that trends in the current health care marketplace may be precipitating relocation of the elderly . The potential negative and positive outcomes of relocation investigated include changes in mortality rates , morbidity , and psychological and social changes . In this review , we found few consistent negative or positive outcomes resulting from relocation ; indeed , the majority of studies we reviewed did not identify any significant resident outcomes as a result of relocation . However , it should also be noted that we also show that many relocation studies have analytic limitations . By combining this prior literature in an analytic model , we help show some opportunities for future research in the relocation of the elderly . ”

The section on “ mortality ” concluded :

“ CARDINAL empirical studies have investigated whether residential relocation is associated with an increase in mortality . No increase in mortality post - relocation was observed in either of these studies , but clearly we should be cautious in drawing any conclusions from CARDINAL studies . ”

In the context of legal proceedings in DATE , Professor PERSON was asked to prepare a report which addressed the likely effect of moves on the physical and mental health of elderly residents of care homes . In his report , he noted :

“ CARDINAL . Amongst the life events recognised to be particularly stressful is move of accommodation . This is true whether an individual is moving from CARDINAL house to another either in an enforced way or in a planned way , and as Dr ORG remarks in paragraph CARDINAL of his report of DATE for older people in particular moving residence is amongst the highest risk factor for triggering an anxiety response and possible depression . It is only marginally less significant than death of a spouse ' . ”

As to the reliability of the available literature and data on residential care home moves , he noted :

“ CARDINAL . Turning again to the literature of the impact of relocation of older people from residential home to residential home or similar institution to similar institution : PERSON has produced a helpful and scholarly review including detailed analysis of some of the papers made available to the ORG , as well as reference to some of the work . It is important to put the published literature into context . Papers and special reports are put together and offered for publication with a view to conveying particular messages or making particular points . As PERSON points out , there are no circumstances in which older people with or without evidence of frailty would be exposed by design in a controlled experimental way to the stresses associated with closure of homes , relocation to alternative environments , and perhaps relocation back to newly refurbished accommodation . There would be no justification for such an experiment ; it would be deemed economically impracticable and ethnically unacceptable .

What we have is a selective reporting of experiences that occur when relocations are required as a consequence of unplanned tragedies such as a fire in a home , the discovery of safety problems , etc , or in response to alternative practical considerations such as the nonviability financially of a sponsoring organisation or a requirement such as that operative in the present case to improve standards , to reduce the overall beddage of a particular component of the care sector .

So materials that come into the public arena are represented as selected sample . Some are selected by authors wanting to make the point that moving old people puts them at risk and seeking to document and quantify that risk and its impact . Others wanting to make the point that despite the common understanding that moves are stressful and can cause deterioration in health and bring forward death , it is possible by taking careful thought and planning , engaging the individuals and their families and the care staff in making suitable arrangements , to minimise the adverse impact of relocations . ”

Commenting on his assessment of the possible risk of increased mortality resulting from a move , he said :

“ DATE . In summary statements , PERSON reflects :

Paragraph DATE where research has been undertaken , the evidence is equivocal ' and in paragraph PERCENT ' broadly , the epidemiological evidence suggests that , under optimal conditions , relocation from CARDINAL care setting to another does not significantly increase the risk of mortality or morbidity ' .

My own view is that from common experience , from my clinical experience , and from an informed review of the literature , it is an inescapable truism that relocation is a stressful event and can precipitate problems of mental health , physical health , and even bring forth death . There are published examples of good practice that when every care and consideration is taken into account in planning and conducting moves , and where matters are not confounded by unplanned or unforeseen complications , the impact of this stress can be minimised . Achieving ' optimal conditions ' for individuals and groups of individuals is , in practice , very difficult to achieve and can not reasonably be guaranteed . ”

He summarised factors which could have a bearing on the resilience of elderly residents facing a transfer to another care home :

“ DATE . Some individuals are more susceptible to the impact of relocation than others . They are likely to be more susceptible to any life event . Characteristics which identify people likely to encounter the greatest difficulty include :

- evidence of previous breakdown in response to stress .

- DATE with very advanced age making it more difficult to adapt to change .

- gender – men by and large adapt less well to change and stress than women .

- the presence of pathological impairments – these might produce physical impairments , reduced mobility , and incontinence of urine .

- they may make it more difficult to understand the environment DATE reduced eyesight or blindness , reduced hearing or deafness , or other loss of sensory facility .

- the presence of depression , anxiety or a demonstrated vulnerability to such symptomatology is likely to be exacerbated by any move .

- the presence of cognitive impairments , i.e. impairment of the facility to understand , comprehend , remember and reason with the information that a move is to be made makes the individual particularly vulnerable , for no matter how much work is done to explain the situation and to help them come to terms with the situation , all that work may be lost because of the failure to register and to remember . In addition , fragments of an understanding and the anxieties associated with that understanding or CARDINAL understanding , may come back repeatedly to haunt the individual .

Combinations of these vulnerability factors increase the risk of adverse reactions to the relocation stress and , of course , such combinations are not uncommon amongst individuals who are living in residential care . ”

On options available to minimise the risks to residents of a transfer , PERSON commented :

“ DATE . ... The first consideration has to be to examine again whether it is necessary or inevitable that the relocation proceeds . There is little doubt that the best interests of these individuals will be served by continuing to live in the environment that they choose , have chosen and have not moved from .

The next consideration is to deal with each individual as an individual , investigating the situation carefully with them and with their families , their medical practitioner advisers , and anyone else who is relevant , so that they can be made aware as far as they are able of the proposals and their implications and the alternatives . Some will choose to move to alternative accommodation of their choice rather than remain in a situation of uncertainty and potential conflict ...

Others will choose to remain in their present care environments and to accept changes that will occur within that environment and the programme of relocation presented to them by the authorities . For these individuals , the authorities have additional responsibilities . It is clear that if individuals or groups of individuals are to move from CARDINAL environment to another , then the receiving environment must be at least as well physically attuned to their needs as the CARDINAL from which they are moving . It must be warm and comfortable and have suitable facilities , and to be accessible by friends and relatives who would wish to visit . Where it is possible for groups of friends to move together , then this has every advantage for the friendship circle will be sustaining both in anticipating the move , coping with the move , and reflecting on its aftermath . Similarly , where it is possible for staff to move as a group with their charges , there is every advantage . The familiarity of a trusted carer or nurse is extremely reassuring to the individual . Older people with multiple pathologies have multiple needs based on those pathologies as well as upon their personal preferences and styles . These are known to those who care for them and carrying that expertise from CARDINAL situation to another reduces and minimises stress . There may be advantage in brand new and special equipment but there is also advantage in carrying with CARDINAL favoured and trusted comforts , which might include a chair , table , radio , etc . It is extremely important when such relocations are being contemplated , that extremely careful arrangements are made for continuity of medical care and support . If it is possible for CARDINAL practice to continue to be the provider , that is maybe ideal . If there is to be transfer from CARDINAL practice to another , it is important that all information is conveyed from the donor practice to the receiver practice well in advance , preferably by personal contact . It is important that a receiving environment is well prepared in advance of DATE of a move . It may be possible to move all residents from CARDINAL home to another on DATE but it is a difficult logistical task . There is a requirement for staffing at both ends as well as staffing to conduct the transfer . The involvement of people 's families in the process can be very helpful . It is important not to try to do too much all in one frantic move . It may be necessary to undertake a series of moves of a modest number of individuals so that everyone 's needs can be properly attended to . There are considerations of DATE and climate . Moves during the cold of DATE are hazardous and should be avoided for cold is stressful and deaths preferentially occur in DATE . ”

Professor PERSON was asked by ORG PERSON to prepare a report following the death of CARDINAL elderly residents who had recently moved care home . He summarised the relevant literature as follows :

“ In the scientific literature , there have been a number of reports over DATE concerning the effects of the relocation of older people , either from ORG ) continuing care wards to homes , or from CARDINAL home to another . A review by ORG , summarized the literature over DATE . The mortality of elderly residents who are moved compared to those who are not , seems to be increased by CARDINAL . It is clear from a number of studies that the people most at risk are those who are relatively immobile , need to be helped with dressing and washing , have significant physical illness and who have severe dementia . A combination of these risk factors puts a resident at greater risk . It has also been suggested by CARDINAL Inquiry into such a transfer , where CARDINAL deaths occurred within DATE of moving ( ORG , DATE ) that poor planning of the process was partly to blame – implementation and monitoring of the transfer was not carried out in sufficient detail and there was not enough time given to new staff to become familiar with the needs of transferred residents . In DATE , ORG produced guidance on the transfer of frail older people from the ORG ( ORG , DATE ) . Some studies ( for example that of ORG and Crome , DATE ) have found no increase in mortality but note that at the time of transfer a lot of attention had been paid to the organisation of the process and families , carers and staff were involved . Publications since DATE have included : PERSON ( DATE ) who concluded from his study that physical ill health and old age , rather than the trauma associated with relocation itself , explained mortality ; ORG ) who confirmed how disruptive it is for older people with dementia to move and found a death rate of CARDINAL after DATE and ; PERSON ( DATE ) who measured the physical effects of moving on levels of stress hormones in the body of older people who had taken part in a relocation and found that the move was associated with much higher levels DATE after the move .

Thus , it has been well documented that there is an increase in mortality in older people when they move from CARDINAL setting to another . The risk factors are being frail and hav[ing ] dementia . Organising the transfer with proper care can mitigate against the negative effects of the move . ”

NORP In his report , PERSON commented :

“ CARDINAL . Many local authorities have revised and published policies and protocols on home closure since the DATE publication by ORG of ' Guidelines for the closure of care homes for older people : presence and content of local government procedures ' , ORG A GPE .

I have looked at a crosssection of these . Most local authority protocols and procedures now specifically address most of the issues identified in the ORG , PERSON and ORG reviews . ”

Reviewing previous publications and research in the field , Professor PERSON noted :

“ CARDINAL . Professor PERSON refers to methodological limitations of devising effective research to measure the effects of home closure on older people which are reflected in the existing literature . Effective control studies have not been mounted , either because they would be unethical or impractical .

PERCENT of local authority care home residents suffer from some degree of dementia and PERCENT from significant depressive illness ... Such individuals are unlikely to be capable of consent or agreement to be subjects for research or agreeable to publication of their case histories , even if successfully relocated .

Most case studies have only been published because there were significant adverse outcomes for the residents . This represents a ' publication bias ' in favour of ' bad news ' rather than ' good news ' outcomes . In this context it is therefore highly significant that there are several published reports indicating ' successful ' transfer of vulnerable older people where preparation was undertaken to a high standard . ”

On the risks of transfer , he concluded :

“ CARDINAL Professors GPE and PERSON have provided a fair summary of the existing evidence , albeit much of it lacks research vigour about the particular risks faced by older people moving from CARDINAL care home to another ...

As a consultant trained in both geriatric medicine and psychiatry I have seen consequences of both hasty and well planned care home transfers of CARDINAL of vulnerable older people over DATE . In broad terms I fully endorse the conclusions of Professors PERSON and PERSON , which is that older people in care homes are a vulnerable group who are at risk of deterioration with ill planned relocation . However , careful planning and preparation of individuals , following personalised care plans and maximising continuity of care , can minimise the risks such that the risk of an adverse outcome is very low . ”

In his report , PERSON was asked to address the question whether , having regard to the reports of Professors PERSON and PERSON , it was in principle possible to transfer care home residents , in particular individuals suffering from dementia , without any increased risk of mortality . He responded :

“ CARDINAL . Yes , provided the vulnerability of individual residents is recognised and assessed to a high standard , with multi disciplinary and family / carer consultation and all steps ( consistent with the experience and best practice as outlined by PERSON , Jolley , ORG and in this report ) are taken to avoid unnecessary risk and trauma to individuals facing transfer . It needs to be acknowledged that in any population of frail older people with an average age in DATE there will be a small number of deaths to be expected in DATE prior and following transfer . ”

The question of the impact of the closure of residential care homes on residents ' human rights has been brought before the domestic courts on several occasions . In R ( ORG and others ) v. PERSON [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( ORG ) , PERSON considered the Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL arguments in respect of a proposed care home closure and noted :

“ CARDINAL . I am prepared to assume that a positive obligation of the kind suggested by [ counsel for the applicant ] was imposed on the ORG . In this case , ORG and CARDINAL are being invoked to impose positive obligations on the ORG as they themselves are not responsible for killing or torturing the claimants . The result is that the limits of the obligations are defined by proportionality . That means the obligation on the authority to take measures to protect the citizens from breaches of their LAW rights is limited in that the obligation must not impose an ' impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities ' ( PERSON v. GPE CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL [ CARDINAL ] and R ( Pretty ) v. ORG [ CARDINAL ] ) . ”

He concluded :

“ DATE . The LAW claim fails for CARDINAL reasons . First , I do not consider that there is evidence that the risk to the claimants ' lives would reach the level needed to engage LAW as explained by [ counsel for the applicant ] in the light of both the precautions and steps to be taken by the ORG . The claimants have not adduced any evidence to criticise or to comment on the steps that the ORG consider adequate . Second , in any event , even if that is wrong I consider that the ORG has met the requirements relied on by the claimant , which is , according to [ counsel for the applicant ] , to ensure that ' the state did all that could reasonably been required of it to prevent the [ claimant 's ] life being avoidably put at risk ' ( ORG v. GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR [ CARDINAL ] ) ... Third , as I will explain at the end of this judgment , the ORG has agreed to liaise with Professor PERSON or another consultant in the psychiatry of the old aged on the best ways of moving the claimants so as to reduce the risk to them . It was agreed that the parties would have liberty to apply if problems arose . This will ensure that the claimants ' lives will not be at risk . Fourth , if I had been in any doubt about LAW CARDINAL claim the factor to which I have just referred would have led me to the same conclusion that this Article QUANTITY challenge fails because the courts accord a broad area of discretionary judgment to a public authority in deciding what is a fair balance between the interests of an individual and of the community ... This would prevent the ORG 's decision being impugned on LAW grounds . Thus , I conclude that the claimants ' rights under LAW will not be infringed by the move . ”

The Article CARDINAL complaint was dismissed for similar reasons .

As to the Article CARDINAL complaint , PERSON held that :

“ DATE . I consider that the claim in respect of Article CARDINAL fails for CARDINAL reasons . First , there is no cogent evidence of disruption of home or family life or interference with the right to physical integrity ...

The way in which the moves are and have been planned ... indicates that a great deal is being done to ensure that the move is as undisruptive to the claimants as it could possibly be . No cogent criticism has been made by [ counsel for the applicants ] of the proposed arrangements . It is particularly noteworthy that the ORG intends to do all that is necessary to preserve friendship groups and thus shows respect for what would be covered under LAW ) as ' family life ' . The other measures ... show the claimants ' rights to physical integrity and respect for home and family life have been safeguarded and are not infringed . As I have explained ... individual assessments of all residents have been carried out . I have explained ... the way in which the ORG has agreed to liaise with the claimants ' expert consultant psychiatrist on the best ways of moving the claimants so as to reduce any risk to them .

Second , the financial resources of the ORG is an important element to be considered to the balancing exercise required in the application of Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ...

A third reason why this claim based on DATE must fail is that the ORG is entitled to a substantial degree of deference relating to the way in which it allocates its resources and provides services . This is relevant as Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) requires a balancing exercise . These are matters very much within the expertise of a local authority and with which a court should only interfere where the evidence is very clear , but this is , as I have explained , not such a case . ”

Subsequently , in R ( ORG and others ) v. ORG [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( Admin ) , ORG Judge PERSON , having reviewed carefully the various reports put before him ( including the PERSON , PERSON and ORG reports ) , concluded :

“ CARDINAL . ... In my judgment , having considered this material , it seems to me that at most the material establishes that in some studies a statistical increase of the sort alleged by the Claimant has been established , while in others it has not . Further , it seems to me that on proper analysis what the material shows is that different people may react to a move in different ways , and that moves which are sensitively and thoughtfully handled can be achieved without a significant increase in mortality , although there may be individuals who can not be moved however carefully the moving process is handled , though such cases will be rare . ”

On the LAW complaint , he found :

“ DATE . I reject the suggestion that in taking the decision to close , the authorities violated LAW . As PERSON said in PERSON :

' CARDINAL ... the evidence does not point to a breach of LAW in this case . No particularised medical evidence has been filed showing that the life of any particular resident is seriously at risk . What the claimant needs to establish is that “ the authorities did not do all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge ” – see PERSON . The claimants have not established that in this case . '

In my judgment that point applies equally here as it did in that case ... [ T]here can be no doubt at all that all relevant LAW issues will be considered before any resident is required to move ... ”

Judge PERSON referred to PERSON conclusions as to why LAW claim in R ( Haggarty and others ) failed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that all of the points made by PERSON also applied in the case before him . He concluded :

“ In the circumstances , whilst I am prepared to grant permission in relation to the application to bring judicial review proceedings , I dismiss the applications for reasons that I have given . ”

A further challenge to the closure of a residential care home and the transfer of a DATE old resident was brought before the courts in the case of R ( PERSON ) v. PERSON on ORG [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( Admin ) . Leave to seek judicial review was granted on limited grounds relating to the information before the ORG when it took its decision to close the care home . PERSON explained :

“ CARDINAL . The claim ... raised a number of grounds for seeking judicial review , none of which , save for one , I concluded was arguable ... The first was that it was said that consultation was not sufficient in law bearing in mind that neither residents or relatives were made aware of the risk to health of closing FAC and relocating residents . In my judgment that was not an arguable ground .

Lord Justice PERSON established a number of principles in R ( ORG ) ex p PERSON [ DATE ] FAC . I am perfectly satisfied that those principles were all satisfied in this case . In particular the question and answer document disclosed that the issue of risk of death to residents was raised , and canvassed during that consultation , sufficiently so that the specific question and the response to it appeared in the question and answer document . Thus as the purpose of the consultation is to enable those being consulted to raise issues for consideration by the council , plainly the consultation was sufficient for that purpose and the mere fact that an individual 's relatives may not have been aware of the risk does not in any way cast doubt on the lawfulness of the consultation process .

Ground CARDINAL sought to argue that LAW was engaged . Again in my judgment that ground was not arguable . Before such an article is engaged the hurdle to be surmounted is a high one ...

A certain amount of material has been placed before the court as to the nature and degree of risk to life or health from such relocation . I will return to that evidence in a moment . But suffice to say that the level of risk is small . The evidence is entirely generic . It does not remotely come close , in my judgment , to engaging LAW ...

The CARDINAL ground on which I did conclude that the case was arguable was whether the issue of the risk to health or life of residents had been sufficiently placed before the councillors who were taking their decision on DATE and confirming it on DATE so as to enable it to be said that the council had considered that relevant issue . It was on the basis that the councillors were said to have had insufficient information about the nature and the extent of the risk of the health or life of the residents from relocation when they took their decision on DATE and/or when that decision was confirmed on DATE . Criticism was made of the fact that there was no reference to that risk at all in the main report . The issue was raised only tangentially in one of the many questions the subject of the Q and A document , and in particular question CARDINAL .

The argument was ... that at that stage the issue was not given such prominence or seriousness of consideration to enable or ensure that the councillors engaged properly with it and gave it its appropriate weight ... ”

DATE . In assessing the evidence of the risk to life and health of elderly residents from an enforced transfer , PERSON noted :

“ CARDINAL . ... It is perhaps a matter of common sense that just as moving house is CARDINAL of the most stressful life events so too would be relocation of an elderly and frail person from CARDINAL residential home to another , particularly where the decision to relocate has not been taken by that person but is the product of a decision taken by an administrative authority . ”

He made reference to reports prepared by experts for the claimant and for the local authority and noted the terms of a joint statement agreed by both experts in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . We have no fundamental disagreements with the contents of each other 's reports .

We agree that the current situation is not ideal in that it did not offer the claimant adequate social stimulation . On the other hand , the status quo posed no increase of morbidity or mortality .

However the current situation may not be sustainable and may result in an unplanned move which in our opinion may be more detrimental to both her mental and physical health than the planned measures which have already been put in place .

The ultimate and final decision rests with the court . Both of us have endeavoured to suggest ways in which the risks can be mitigated , not eliminated . ”

He considered the reports of Professors PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and the argument that the information before the councillors who took the decision to close the home was inadequate . He concluded :

“ CARDINAL . I have to look at the whole process of the taking of the decision which includes the scrutiny meeting on DATE . I was drawn with specific attention to the terms of the call - in which explicitly raised the question of the impact of closure and relocation on the health of the residents ... The report drew specific attention to that point and responded to it in ... comprehensive terms ...

In my judgment the terms of the call - in and the way in which it was dealt with in the report make it perfectly clear that the issue of the impact on the health of the residents of a decision to close and relocate was before them and was considered by them in a prominent and focussed way ... It was plainly implicit in the fact that this consideration had been raised and the terms in which it was raised that there was perceived to be a potential risk and it was a risk that had to be addressed . ”

In the subsequent case of R ( ORG and others ) v. ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ DATE , decided after the decision of ORG in the applicant 's judicial review proceedings , ORG in ORG considered the medical reports prepared by Professor PERSON , which identified a significant reduction in life expectancy if the claimants were moved to a new care home . ORG noted that Professor PERSON 's reports were reliant on research conducted by others , and commented that :

“ CARDINAL . In a field of research in which it is not possible to conduct experiments , such indeterminacy is unsurprising . ORG 's data do of course include studies which suggest that poorly handled relocations can cause stress and anxiety , which in turn can adversely affect the life expectancy of the more vulnerable . Both local authorities have throughout been well aware of DATE one wonders indeed whether it requires research to establish it – and have been advised by specialists about ways of preventing it . ”

He concluded that it was for the court to consider whether Professor PERSON 's conclusions were justified , taking into consideration the sources cited . On this , he found :

“ DATE . ... while Professor PERSON concludes that on the balance of probabilities PERSON life expectancy will be reduced by relocation ' to a significant degree ' , the FAC survey on which he relies confirms only that relocation may have that effect and ... that further research is desirable .

It would in our judgment require at lowest evidence of a real risk that relocation was to be undertaken in a way injurious to the particular patient 's health to trigger the supervisory jurisdiction of ORG over the conduct of local government . Neither the material relied on by PERSON nor the research relied on by Professor PERSON establishes this in PERSON or any other of the cases before us . Exactly the same is the case , as this court has pointed out on an earlier occasion , if it is recognised that the duty owed by the local authorities to these patients is not a public law duty at all but the common law duty of care DATE a question of private law , but CARDINAL which introduces a standard of care entirely consonant with the Art CARDINAL obligation . ”

Sedley J noted that Professor PERSON had clarified that :

“ Optimal procedures will substantially reduce but can not eliminate risk – some people are nonetheless likely to die prematurely ... ; [ this risk ] can not always be reduced to ' very low indeed ' though in most cases it can probably be reduced to ' low ' . ”

In respect of the claimant 's LAW complaint , ORG concluded :

“ CARDINAL . The test of a ' real and immediate risk ' is ' one that is not readily satisfied : in other words the threshold is high ' ... The evidence before this ORG falls far short of this threshold .

This is not the first time that the courts have considered whether a decision to close a care home breaches a public authority 's positive obligations under LAW . In R ( on the application of ORG ) v. ORG [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL PERSON reviewed the case law in this area and assessed its application to circumstances similar to those before this Court : § CARDINAL - CARDINAL . His review and conclusions , which have not been directly challenged before us , ought to have put those advising the present claimants on clear notice that their case faced formidable difficulties of principle , and that to involve them in litigation might contribute to the stress of relocation .

These are the principal reasons why permission to appeal was refused in both cases ... ”

He added :

“ DATE . On the present applications PERSON made it part of her written and oral submissions that this court , giving judgment in the recent case of R ( LOC ) v. ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ DATE , had said that ' if there had been a risk to life the result would have been very different ' . In fact , as the transcript confirms , the court said that it would be prepared to intervene ' if there were any firm evidence that moving [ the resident ] was going to shorten her life ' . That quite different state of affairs did not obtain there and does not obtain here .

Beyond this there has to be concern at the drain on public funds on both sides . It may be that the litigation , at least in its early phase , concentrated the minds of local authorities on the nature and extent of their duties towards care home residents who had to be relocated ; but there has been no evidence before the courts in recent applications of which we have knowledge that these duties are being either ignored or violated . Nothing is wholly without risk , but so long as councils do the best that can professionally be done to minimise identifiable risks to frail and elderly people in their care , the law has no immediate role to play . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

From DATE he lived in an apartment rented from the ORG in a nationalised building . On DATE , under PERSON no . LANGUAGE on the legal status of certain residential property , the applicant bought that apartment from the ORG .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed an action ( acţiunea în revendicare ) brought by the former owner against the ORG for recovery of possession of the building where the applicant ’s apartment was situated .

Based on that decision , the former owner lodged several actions for recovery of possession against the persons who had bought apartments in the building in similar conditions , including the applicant .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant to surrender possession of the apartment to the plaintiff . The court found that the former owner ’s property title deed , as it had been confirmed by the final decision of DATE , prevailed over the applicant ’s purchase contract . It also considered that the applicant ’s bona fides in concluding the CARDINAL DATE contract was relevant only in the event that the applicant lodged an action for compensation against the ORG .

Meanwhile , the same ORG did take into account the LOC good faith in dismissing actions lodged by the former owner against other persons who had bought apartments in the same building . Thus , on DATE ORG dismissed the action against ORG , who had bought their apartment on DATE ; on DATE it dismissed the action against ORG and GPE and on DATE it dismissed the action against GPE , who had bought his apartment on DATE .

On DATE ORG and ORG , acting on an application by the Procurator General ( recurs PERSON anulare ) , quashed the final decision of DATE and sent the case back to the firstinstance court . According to the information available to the ORG , the proceedings are still pending with the domestic courts .

On DATE ORG allowed a similar application by the Procurator General and set aside the DATE decision , thereby allowing the former owner ’s action against GPE

A similar action by the Procurator General , lodged against the CARDINAL DATE decision mentioned above , was allowed by ORG on DATE . The case was sent back to ORG for re - examination of the appeal . The proceedings are still pending with that court .

As to the applicant , eviction proceedings lodged by the former owner against him are currently pending with the domestic courts .

Under NORP law , an action for recovery of possession is one of the principal remedies for the protection of a right of property . Such action is not governed by statute per se but has emerged from case - law . An action for recovery of possession can be defined as the bringing of proceedings to enforce a right in rem in which a dispossessed owner claims back his or her property from the person currently in possession of it . When both the plaintiff and the defendant have a title deed , the court must compare the CARDINAL deeds and decide which one is preferred . The main outcome of such an action , if successful , is the acknowledgment by the court of the claimant ’s title to the property , with retrospective effect , thus obliging the defendant to return the property . If physical restitution is no longer possible , that obligation is replaced by an obligation to pay compensation on the basis of an equivalent sum ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) .

Articles CARDINAL of the Civil Code institute the seller ’s responsibility for eviction . They provide for the evicted buyer to claim reimbursement of the price and also the payment of costs and damages , regardless of the seller ’s good or bad faith . The buyer can either join the seller to the proceedings instituted against him by the third party or lodge a new action against the seller after having been evicted . In the latter case , if the seller proves that he could have won the case against the third party had he been joined to the proceedings , he will be exempted from compensating the buyer ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) .

A bona fide buyer continues to enjoy the benefits of the property until he is no longer considered bona fide , that is at the latest when the action for eviction is lodged against him , at which time enjoyment of the property reverts to the rightful owner . However , the buyer may still claim compensation for his loss from the seller .

At the date of the facts of the present case , LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the rules governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the ORG DATE and DATE , as amended by ORG Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ PERSON no . CARDINAL ” ) , prescribed that an action for recovery of the purchase price , indexed to take account of inflation , brought against the ORG by a buyer whose contract had been declared null and void , was not subject to court fees . It also provided that the indexed price was to be paid by ORG from a special fund .

At the ORG ’s request , the Government submitted case - law on the different actions for compensation when property is lost in conditions similar to those of the case at hand .

Of the CARDINAL relevant decisions adopted DATE by courts all over the country , CARDINAL concerned actions lodged against the ORG authorities by persons who lost their property in actions for recovery of possession . The courts applied LAW and awarded them the indexed purchase price and , in most of the cases , damages and the costs reasonably incurred for the upkeep of the house . Most of the courts considered that PERSON no . MONEY was not applicable to actions for recovery of possession when the sale contract was not declared null and void in such proceedings .

When such contracts are cancelled , however , the decisions submitted to the ORG indicate that the courts consistently apply PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and award the buyer the indexed purchase price .

In a decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG found in favour of the buyer in an action for recovery of possession lodged by the former owner of a nationalised apartment against the person who in good faith had bought the apartment from the ORG in DATE . The court decided that the restitution of the apartment to the former owner was no longer possible and , based on the ORG ’s case - law on LAW CARDINAL ( in particular : PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON CARDINAL ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII ( extracts ) ) , it compelled the ORG to pay the market value of the apartment in compensation to the former owner . In the court’the monetary award was the only solution to the action for recovery of possession .

In a similar decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG found in favour of the buyer in an action for recovery of possession lodged by the former owner . ORG took account of the fact that the buyer ’s title had been confirmed by the courts in an action in nullity of the sale contract lodged against him by the former owner whereas the former owner ’s title had not been upheld by a court . It further considered that dispossessing the buyer regardless of the circumstances , in order to surrender the property to the former owner , would create disproportionate new wrongs in the attempt to attenuate old injuries . It also considered , in a general statement , that the reimbursement of the indexed purchase price under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL could not compensate the buyer as it did not reflect the property ’s market value .

NORP In a decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG declared LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL unconstitutional in so far as it breached the buyer ’s property title . Under the provision concerned , persons whose actions based on LAW had been dismissed before the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL could use this PERSON in order once again to seek the restitution of their property . ORG considered that persons whose title to property had been confirmed by a court decision could not be compelled to surrender that property where there was no serious justification for such a measure , based on public order , under LAW .


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

On DATE , ORG ( ORG ) of ORG pronounced the divorce between the applicant and his wife , PERSON The care and custody ( voogdij ) of their QUANTITY children was awarded to PERSON The applicant was appointed as co - guardian ( toeziend voogd ) . It was further decided that the applicant was to pay ORG . CARDINAL per month for child support .

The determination of an access arrangement for the applicant formed the subject of separate subsequent proceedings . On DATE , in proceedings on appeal against an initial decision , ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of ‘ sHertogenbosch decided to adjourn its proceedings pending the submission of the results of an examination of the children and their parents to be carried out by ORG ( Pedagogisch ORG ; “ PAR ” ) .

In its decision of DATE , ORG noted PERSON refusal to co - operate with the investigation by the ORG as well as her refusal to co - operate in exploring possibilities to start an access arrangement . It rejected as insufficiently weighty the arguments submitted by PERSON to the effect that the applicant should be denied access to his children . It held that , moreover , the mother ’s uncooperative attitude as to the examination by the ORG had resulted in a situation that it could not be established whether the applicant ’s access to both children would possibly be contrary to the children ’s interests . ORG determined an access arrangement according to which the applicant had access to the children DATE per fortnight as CARDINAL of the children ’s holidays .

As PERSON refused to comply with this access arrangement , the applicant took summary proceedings ( kort geding ) against her before ORG of GPE seeking a judicial compliance order with a penalty of ORG . CARDINAL for each time PERSON would fail to comply .

In its judgment of DATE , following proceedings in which PERSON had been declared in default of appearance , ORG ordered PERSON to comply with the access arrangement determined by ORG on DATE . It further determined a penalty of ORG . CARDINAL for DATE or part thereof that PERSON would not comply . This penalty was limited to a maximum of ORG . CARDINAL . ORG finally declared its judgment to be immediately enforceable ( bij voorraad uitvoerbaar ) .

The applicant filed an appeal with ORG of ‘ s - Hertogenbosch in respect of the determination of the penalty and the maximum limitation thereof . He requested ORG to fix the penalty at ORG . CARDINAL for each time of non - compliance and to allow him to off set the penalties incurred by PERSON with the child support that he had to pay .

In its judgment of DATE , ORG accepted the applicant ’s argument that , given the fact that PERSON had as yet failed to comply with the judgment of DATE , the penalty determined by ORG was an insufficient means of pressure . Consequently , it decided to fix the penalty for non - compliance at ORG . CARDINAL for DATE or part thereof .

As to the maximum limitation of the penalty , ORG considered that , as PERSON had failed to appear before both ORG and ORG and thus did not find it even necessary to submit facts or circumstances in justification of her position and , therefore , rendered a judicial examination thereof impossible , PERSON behaviour should not be sanctioned . On this basis it decided not to determine a maximum limit for the penalty .

ORG did , however , reject the applicant ’s request to be allowed to off set the penalty for non - compliance with the child support he had to pay . It held that PERSON , in her capacity as the children ’s guardian , received the child support which by its very nature was fully intended for the children . It noted that the applicant had never disputed the children ’s need of this support . The penalties , however , were due by PERSON in her personal capacity . The applicant and PERSON could , therefore , not be regarded as reciprocal debtors within the meaning of Article CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) . It further held that , also on the basis of LAW - which deals with CARDINAL situations in which a debtor is not competent to off set - in conjunction with Article LAW under ( e ) of LAW ( Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering ) , according to which payments for maintenance are exempted from seizure , compensation was not possible in this case .

Consequently , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE in respect of the determination of the penalty and the maximum limitation thereof , fixed the penalty to ORG . CARDINAL for DATE or part thereof of non - compliance without setting a maximum limit and declared its judgment to be immediately enforceable .

The applicant filed an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) , complaining that ORG had incorrectly held that to off set the penalties with the child support was not possible . He submitted that PERSON , in refusing to comply with the access arrangement , did not only act in her personal capacity , but also in her capacity as the children ’s guardian .

In its judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the appeal in cassation . It held that , by judgment , PERSON had been ordered , in her personal capacity , to comply with the access arrangement and that therefore , in case of non - compliance , she forfeited , also in her personal capacity , the penalty determined .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Oberwart / GPE . He is an auditor and tax consultant ( PERSON ) .

In DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) , in the course of investigations into a large scale fraud relating to the “ WEB / IMMAG ” group , instituted criminal proceedings against CARDINAL persons , requesting them to submit in writing their comments as suspects .

On DATE the applicant , who in his professional capacity assisted the “ WEB / IMMAG ” group , wrote a letter to ORG . Therein he asked that his income tax declarations for DATE be corrected , so that the losses declared be cancelled , in particular ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for DATE ; ORG CARDINAL for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for DATE . He further asked that following a re - calculation of his income , new tax assessment orders be issued .

On DATE and DATE ORG informed the applicant that he was suspected of tax evasion in that he had acted as a sham holder of shares in CARDINAL cases concerning DATE . It further invited him to submit his comments in writing .

After the applicant 's request of CARDINAL DATE for an extension of the time - limit had been granted , he submitted his comments on DATE .

Until DATE ORG for ORG ) examined the “ WEB / IMMAG ” group .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to transmit the applicant 's tax file in order to determine the amount of evaded taxes .

On DATE ORG replied to ORG that the file could not be transferred because of pending investigations .

Following another request for transfer of the file by ORG on DATE , ORG , on DATE , replied that the file had been sent to ORG for ORG - scale Companies and could only be transmitted after these investigations had been completed .

Upon ORG request of DATE , ORG for ORG - scale Companies transferred the applicant 's file on DATE .

On DATE ORG informed ORG of the result of its investigations and requested that the applicant be prosecuted for tax evasion . It noted that the losses declared by the applicant for DATE ( ORG CARDINAL for DATE , ORG CARDINAL for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for DATE ) resulted in tax evasion of ORG CARDINAL for DATE , ORG CARDINAL for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for DATE . Thus , the total amount of evaded taxes was ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE , when interrogated by ORG , the applicant stated that he wished to submit his comments in writing directly to ORG by DATE . On DATE and on DATE , he requested extensions of the time - limit as he had fallen ill . On DATE he submitted his comments and observations in writing .

On DATE ORG preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with tax evasion of ORG CARDINAL in that he had made false statements of losses in his income tax forms DATE ( ATS CARDINAL for DATE ; ORG CARDINAL for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for DATE ) . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL pages .

On DATE , the presiding judge of the chamber dealing with the applicant 's case informed the President of ORG that he considered himself biased since he had been the deputy investigating judge in proceedings against other accused relating to the same case . On DATE , the President decided nevertheless that the presiding judge should not withdraw from the case .

On DATE the applicant requested that the trial scheduled for CARDINAL DATE be adjourned . This request was granted by the court .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of tax evasion , pursuant to LAW § CARDINAL of the Code of Tax Offences ( Finanzstrafgesetz ) . As regards the applicant 's argument that he could not be punished because his letter of CARDINAL DATE constituted “ self - denunciation ” of a tax offence resulting in exemption from punishment , the court observed that it had not been made in time because the tax authorities had already discovered the offence , and it had not been sufficiently detailed for the purposes of a “ self - denunciation ” .

On DATE the written version of the judgment , comprising CARDINAL pages , was served on the applicant 's counsel . Thereupon , on DATE , the applicant filed a plea of nullity ( GPE ) and requested that the transcripts of the trial be corrected . On DATE , after having obtained various statements , ORG corrected the transcripts .

On DATE the Procurator General ( Generalprokurator ) submitted his observations on the applicant 's plea of nullity .

On DATE ORG scheduled the hearing on the plea of nullity for DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's plea of nullity . This decision was pronounced orally . On DATE the written version of the judgment , consisting of CARDINAL pages , was served on the applicant 's counsel .