Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

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

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

The applicant was a shareholder of a private joint - stock road - building company “ GPE DSPMK ” ( “ PERSON ДСПМК ” ) . On an unspecified date in DATE she applied to a court to oblige the company to redeem her CARDINAL nominal shares .

On DATE ORG of GPE declared the company insolvent . On DATE an insolvency administrator , Mr N. , was appointed for the insolvency proceedings .

On DATE ORG obliged the company to redeem the CARDINAL nominal shares held in the company by the applicant . On DATE the ORG upheld the judgment and it became final and enforceable .

On DATE the applicant sought enforcement in court .

On DATE the court sent the writ of execution to the local ORG .

On DATE the bailiff served the writ of execution on PERSON instead of PERSON , the administrator . However , PERSON forwarded the writ to Mr N. without delay and the writ was received by Mr. PERSON on DATE .

As the shares were not redeemed by the company , the applicant complained about the bailiffs’ failure to act to the court and to the local ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaints were upheld by ORG . The court reproached the bailiff for negligence in serving the writ on the wrong person and stated that as the applicant had lodged her claim with the court before the company went insolvent , the enforcement proceedings should have been carried out by the bailiff within the civil procedure in accordance with ORG ( ORG РФ “ Об исполнительном производстве ” ) .

On DATE the same court again upheld an identical complaint lodged by the applicant and ordered the bailiff to pursue the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG of GPE closed the insolvency proceedings , having declared the PERSON registered claims paid off . The company had not redeemed the applicant ’s shares as she was fifth in the line of creditors and the company ’s assets did not suffice .

On DATE the Presidium of the ORG quashed the decision of DATE and discontinued the proceedings . The court found that the instruction contained in the operative part of the judgment of DATE provided for service of the writ of execution on the company ’s insolvency administrator for enforcement . This requirement had been fully complied with by the bailiff . The Presidium of ORG also found that there had been procedural flaws , noting , inter alia , that ORG had disregarded the previous decision concerning the same complaint and pointed out that it had failed to indicate the legal grounds for upholding the applicant ’s complaint .

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

The Russian Law on Enforcement Proceedings ( no . CARDINAL-ФЗ of DATE ) designates the court bailiffs’ service as the authority charged with enforcement of court decisions ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Court judgments can also be executed by tax authorities , banks , financial institutions , other organisations , ORG officials and individuals – all of these are not considered to be the enforcement authorities ( section CARDINAL ) .


CASE OF OKLEŠEN AND POKOPALIŠKO POGREBNE STORITVE LEOPOLD OKLEŠEN S.P. v. SLOVENIA

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of P1-1

Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The first applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The second applicant is a private enterprise called FAC and ORG s.p . ( NORP pogrebne storitve PERSON . ) located in ORG .

The second applicant , which was owned , legally represented and run by the first applicant , had held a valid licence issued by ORG ( obrtno dovoljenje ) for the provision of funerals , landscaping and maintenance of exterior surfaces ( zunanja ureditev ) since DATE . The licence confirmed that the second applicant was in compliance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The second applicant used to provide all funeral services in ORG municipality , including preparing and transporting remains , obtaining the necessary documents , arranging cremations , selling funeral items ( coffins , funeral wreaths , flowers and so on ) and organising ceremonies . It appears that funerals represented an important , if not the main , part of the activities of the second applicant .

In DATE a Decree on the provision of public utility as regards cemetery and funeral activities , management of cemeteries and funeral ceremonies in GPE ( “ the DATE Decree ” , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) came into force . Subsequently , ORG ( ORG , “ KNM ” ) was entrusted with the provision of such services in the municipality 's area .

According to ORG 's website ( http://www.komunala-nm.si/ , consulted on DATE ) , ORG provided services concerning , inter alia , digging and organising graves , obtaining documents concerning the deceased , preparation and storage of remains , funeral home leasing , organisation and performance of funeral ceremonies and services and transportation of remains .

By a letter of DATE , ORG warned the second applicant to comply with DATE Decree . This implied , according to ORG , that “ all activities relating to those deceased ( ... ) who are to be buried in cemeteries managed by ORG should be carried out solely by ORG ! ”

On DATE , further to the second applicant 's request , ORG explained that the second applicant was not eligible to provide funeral services because of the restrictions set out in DATE Decree , the DATE LAW and the Cemetery and Funeral Services and LAW ( “ the DATE FAC ” ) . The GPE further stated that the ORG decision no . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL had confirmed that funerals should be a mandatory public utility ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the second applicant submitted a request to ORG for a review of the constitutionality and legality ( pobuda za oceno ustavnosti in zakonitosti ) of the CARDINAL Decree , in particular sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL . While section CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that funerals should be provided by a public utility , section CARDINAL established that a provider of a public utility , namely a public - law enterprise , should be contacted in the event of a death and should be responsible for transport of the remains .

NORP In its request , the second applicant argued that funeral provision should be in the free market , and requested ORG to issue an injunction against DATE Decree . The second applicant further stated that , following the adoption of DATE Decree , ORG had obtained a monopoly in this field and did not allow it to transport remains to cemeteries . It submitted that the DATE Decree had been introduced with the intention of closing down its successful business .

On DATE ORG rejected the second applicant 's request , referring to its earlier decision no . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) finding that section CARDINAL of the DATE Cemetery and Funeral Act was in conformity with the LAW . The above - mentioned provision read together with section DATE of the DATE LAW determined that the funeral services belonged to the mandatory public utilities . These rules were binding on the GPE , which was required to implement them .

According to the applicants , as a result of the above situation the second applicant has been unable to provide the core funeral services since the implementation of the DATE Decree and has lost a large proportion of the clientele due to the CARDINAL Decree 's restrictions .

The second applicant continued to operate until DATE . For illustration of the effects of the DATE Decree 's restrictions on the applicants ' earnings , it would appear from the first 's applicant 's tax forms concerning the second applicant 's activity , that his taxable income was calculated as follows : in DATE , it was MONEY ( ORG ) , in DATE it was ORG CARDINAL , in DATE it was LAW and in DATE it was CARDINAL . After the implementation of the CARDINAL Decree , his taxable income was approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE .

On DATE the second applicant was removed from the NORP register of enterprises . The first applicant retired in DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , provide as follows :

“ The right to private property and inheritance shall be guaranteed . ”

“ Free economic initiative shall be guaranteed . PERSON The conditions for establishing commercial organisations shall be established by law . Commercial activities may not be pursued in a manner contrary to the public interest . CARDINAL Unfair competition practices and practices which restrict competition in a manner contrary to the law are prohibited . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o ustavnem sodišču , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , which concern the review of constitutionality and legality , were at the relevant time as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Anyone who demonstrates a legal interest may submit a request for a procedure to be initiated for a review of the constitutionality or legality of regulations or general acts issued for the exercise of public authority .

( CARDINAL ) A legal interest is deemed to be demonstrated if a regulation or general act issued for the exercise of public authority whose review has been requested by the petitioner directly interferes with his rights , legal interests , or legal position . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG rejects a request if the procedural conditions ... have not been fulfilled .

( CARDINAL ) ORG dismisses a request if it is manifestly unfounded or if it can not be expected that an important legal question will be resolved .

( CARDINAL ) ORG decides by an order to accept or dismiss a request by a majority vote of judges present . The order to dismiss a request must include a statement of reasons .

( CARDINAL ) If ORG accepts a request , it may immediately proceed to decide on the merits of the case if the factual situation has been clarified and if during consideration of the request the opposing party has been given the opportunity to make statements . ”

“ In deciding on the constitutionality and legality of a regulation or general act issued for the exercise of public authority , ORG is not bound by the production of a request . ORG may also review the constitutionality and legality of other provisions of the same or another regulation or general act issued for the exercise of public authority for which a review of constitutionality or legality has not been proposed , if such provisions are mutually related or if this is necessary to resolve the case . ”

( CARDINAL ) ORG quashes regulations or general acts issued for the exercise of public authority that are unconstitutional or unlawful when it determines that it is necessary to remedy harmful consequences arising from such unconstitutionality or unlawfulness . Quashing has retroactive effect .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any person who suffers harmful consequences due to a regulation or general act issued for the exercise of public authority which has been quashed is entitled to request that such consequences be remedied .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Cemetery and Funeral Act , which was adopted in DATE and continued to be in force after the independence of GPE ( Zakon o pokopališki in pogrebni dejavnosti ter o urejanju pokopališč , ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , provides that cemetery and funeral services , as well as the running of cemeteries , correspond to “ municipal activities of special social importance ” ( komunalna dejavnost posebnega družbenega pomena ) . According to section CARDINAL , transport of the deceased was to be provided by a specially designed vehicle of a local public organisation ( komunalne organizacije ) or the local community ( krajevne skupnosti ) .

The DATE LAW ( Zakon o gospodarskih javnih službah , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , entered into force on DATE ) provides in section CARDINAL that mandatory public utilities should be established by law . Local decrees should regulate the way the local public utilities operate . Section CARDINAL provides that public utilities may be ensured through the form of a public - law enterprise ( javno podjetje ) , or through concessions ( koncesija ) granted to private enterprises .

Finally , section DATE provides that until the introduction of legislation establishing specific public utilities , “ activities of special social importance ” should be deemed to be public utilities .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Obrtni zakon , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) provides the following conditions under which a licence may be issued by ORG :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The conditions for obtaining a licence to provide a crafts service are as follows :

– title of master craftsman ,

– proof of fulfilment of the minimum requirements prescribed for providing a certain service .

( CARDINAL ) The conditions for obtaining a craft licence to provide a service which is similar to a crafts service are ...

( CARDINAL ) The minimum requirements prescribed for providing a certain service from the preceding paragraphs are as follows :

– minimum technical and other conditions relating to the space where the service is provided , land and other exterior surface , facilities and equipment ,

– minimum sanitary and health conditions relating to the space where the service is provided , land and other exterior surface , facilities , equipment and the people who work in the workplace

– minimum conditions relating to the exterior surface ( land and other exterior surface ) . ”

On DATE ORG adopted a Decree on the provision of public utilities ( “ the DATE Decree ” , Official Gazette CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which listed funeral services as optional public utility . This Decree was amended on DATE ( “ the DATE LAW , Official Gazette CARDINAL ) . The latter listed funeral and cemetery services among the mandatory public utilities and stipulated that with respect to the cemeteries provided under special decree these services should be provided by a public - law enterprise . On DATE ORG adopted a new Decree on the provision of public utilities ( “ the DATE Decree ” , Official Gazette CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which quashed the previous decree and its amendment . It also listed cemetery and funeral services as mandatory public utilities and stated that a special municipal decree should determine the exact structure by means of which each of the listed public utilities should be provided . On DATE Decree was amended ( “ the DATE Amendment ” , ORG CARDINAL ) , to include a provision stating that “ public utilities .... funeral and cemetery services , which should be carried out by a public - law enterprise according to specific decrees , shall be provided by ORG ” . LAW also stated that “ provided that a particular public service is not entirely provided by ORG , a part of that service can be carried out by another entity on the basis of a contract signed with ORG ... ”

According to LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL , entered into force in DATE ) , cemetery and funeral services , management of cemeteries and funeral ceremonies in GPE should be provided by a mandatory public utility in the form of a public - law enterprise ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The Decree lists CARDINAL cemeteries situated within the ORG municipal area ; it applies to all of them .

Section CARDINAL of the Decree provides :

“ Funerals are normally conducted outside cemeteries and include in particular the following :

- obtaining the required documents ;

- preparation of the body and transport of the remains ;

- renting graves and managing the registry of cemeteries ;

- providing an emergency funeral service ;

- providing other services established by the law or this decree . ”

LAW of the DATE Decree provides that the relatives and the relevant institutions should report the death of a person to the provider of a mandatory public utility . The remains can be taken from a hospital or a retirement home only by the provider of a mandatory public utility . The latter should take the remains from the person or institution concerned and take them to a place specifically designated for this purpose ... ”

On DATE ORG issued a decision in a case brought by a private funeral provider , P. , from GPE na GPE municipality . The court found that section CARDINAL of the DATE Cemetery and Funeral Act was not in conflict with LAW , and neither was the impugned municipality decree , which established funeral services as a local public utility . ORG noted that , since no new act had been adopted in this area , funeral and cemetery services were deemed to be public utility on the basis of section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW read together with LAW Cemetery and Funeral Act .

The Constitutional Court found that the restrictions resulting from the system whereby cemetery and funeral services must be provided as a public utility were justified by the public interest . In addition , the court accepted the municipality 's argument that for ethical , health and sanitary and hygiene reasons funerals could not be provided in the free market . Finally , ORG took into consideration the fact that the impugned regulation was of a transitional nature pending the adoption of a specific law , and found that the duration of this situation had not yet contravened the principle of the rule of law .

On DATE ORG ( GPE za varstvo konkurence – “ the Competition Office ” ) issued a decision declaring lack of jurisdiction to deal with the complaint lodged by the private funeral services provider PERSON latter argued that the municipal enterprise authorised to provide funeral services on the basis of the municipal decree refused to accept at the cemetery remains transported by it .

ORG declared lack of jurisdiction to deal with the complaint , since the impugned decree concerned the ORG 's control of the market . Despite this , ORG expressed criticism concerning the regulation of funerals in GPE . It was , in particular , critical of the fact that , due to a legal vacuum , the DATE Cemetery and Funeral Act , adopted under the previous regime , was still in force . This Act did not distinguish between funerals and cemetery services . Consequently , funerals and cemetery services were automatically considered public utilities on the basis of section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . ORG further noted that funerals , which could not have been provided freely and privately under the previous regime , had in fact been carried out by registered private enterprises since the independence of GPE and the transition of the economic system . These private enterprises had provided all services except those concerning cemeteries .

ORG then listed the funeral products and services which should continue to be provided by private funeral enterprises . They included , inter alia , the sale of funeral articles ( coffins , upholstery , cremation urns and memorials ) , funeral flower arrangements , transport of remains ( except for emergency services which should be provided through concession ) , preparing obituary notices , obtaining the necessary permits and documents , organising ceremonies and graveside services , and the sale and installation of tombstones and memorials .

ORG was of the opinion that the listed services should undoubtedly be subject to a free market regime and that the restrictions in question could not be justified on ethical , health or sanitary or hygiene grounds .

P. lodged a new complaint in DATE , claiming that the municipal enterprise had acted in a discriminatory manner when it refused to bury the remains transported by him while allowing the remains to be transported by some other private entrepreneurs . Further to the remittal of the case by ORG , ORG issued a final decision on CARDINAL DATE . It found that while it was true that ORG had suffered damage due to the municipal enterprise 's acts , the municipal enterprise had a lawful monopoly on the territory of the respective municipality , which included the transport of remains . It has therefore protected its position by preventing PERSON from carrying out business which he could not have done lawfully . The other entrepreneurs who were allowed to bring remains to the cemetery were from other municipalities . As obiter dictum , ORG again questioned the appropriateness and constitutionality of the system , which should operate only as a transitional measure .

According to the information available to the ORG from a number of member GPE , in most of them funeral services are subject to the free market and provided by private firms . In some countries public bodies may choose to provide funeral services , however if they do they must compete with private enterprises . For example , in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , funeral services may also be provided by public bodies . If so , they are subject to market regulations and must compete on the free market with private enterprises . On the other hand , in GPE , as in GPE , funeral services are listed as public utilities and are mostly provided by public bodies .

As far as can be seen , funeral services providers are regulated by law in some countries , as is the case in GPE , GPE , GPE or GPE , and unregulated or self - regulated in others , like GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

In GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , for example , private funeral service providers may only operate with a licence or concession from a public body . Permits or licences are granted by local authorities and subject to a number of requirements , such as professional qualifications and competence , fulfilment of technical , security and health protection standards , and analysis of the company 's financial situation .

Unlike funerals , it would appear that cemetery and crematorium services are generally provided by public bodies , mostly the municipalities , since they are considered essential public services which are intrinsically linked to public health issues . When crematoria were nationalised in GPE , a transitional period was provided and a certain form of compensation was paid to the private enterprises which had formerly run the country 's crematoria .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Violation of Article 13+6 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant married PERSON

On DATE and DATE their children GPE and GPE , respectively , were born .

In DATE the applicant and PERSON started having marital problems .

On DATE PERSON moved out , but the children remained with the applicant .

NORP On DATE the applicant filed a claim with ORG in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , seeking the dissolution of marriage , the custody of the children and a contribution to their maintenance .

In DATE PERSON spent DATE with the children , but failed to return them to the applicant thereafter .

On DATE ORG : ( i ) dissolved the marriage ; ( ii ) granted custody of the children to PERSON ; ( iii ) ordered the applicant to pay DATE child maintenance ; and ( iv ) ruled that the applicant could spend DATE with the children , as well as DATE of their winter and summer holidays , respectively .

By DATE this judgment had become final .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim with ORG , seeking custody of ORG and ORG as well as the amendment of the maintenance ordered .

On DATE PERSON filed a separate claim with ORG , seeking the amendment of the applicant ’s access rights .

On DATE ORG joined these proceedings into a single case .

On DATE the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of ORG

On DATE ORG ruled against the applicant and partly in favour of PERSON In particular , the court ordered that the applicant would be entitled to spend time with GPE and GPE each DATE TIME , thereby restricting his prior access rights .

On an unspecified date thereafter this judgment would appear to have become final .

Having apparently been refused access to the children by PERSON , on DATE the applicant filed an enforcement request with ORG .

On DATE ORG issued an enforcement order , stating , inter alia , that PERSON would be fined MONEY should she fail to comply therewith .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he had been denied all access and requested that the conditional fine now be imposed .

On DATE ORG rejected this request as premature , stating that PERSON had received the order in question on DATE .

On DATE ORG confirmed its decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that his contact with the children was dependent upon the whims of his former wife and noted that the final judgment of DATE was being ignored .

On DATE ORG decided to impose the said fine and again ordered PERSON to respect the applicant ’s access rights .

On DATE the ORG based in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) informed the court that the applicant had not been in touch with them . They further noted that PERSON had stated that the applicant had not shown any initiative to see the children . Lastly , ORG proposed that the enforcement proceedings be terminated .

On DATE ORG ordered PERSON to pay MONEY in costs .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG cancelled this hearing , terminated the enforcement proceedings and reaffirmed its order of DATE . As regards the termination , it referred to the judgment rendered in DATE and relied on the provisions of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

Having received this decision , the applicant failed to file a formal complaint against it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE PERSON paid the fine first imposed on DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of failing to pay child maintenance DATE and DATE and sentenced him to DATE in prison , suspended for DATE .

On DATE ORG revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the applicant to serve DATE in prison .

On DATE this decision became final and on DATE the applicant started serving his sentence . On DATE , however , ORG ordered that the applicant be released on parole .

On DATE ORG confirmed that GPE had effectively been living with the applicant since DATE .

On DATE the said centre observed that : ( i ) the enforcement proceedings had been ineffective due to the uncooperative attitude of the children , as well as their mother ; ( ii ) the contact between the applicant and the children had been re - established in DATE ; ( iii ) in DATE and DATE , respectively , GPE had fled to the applicant ’s home ; and ( iv ) the applicant himself could not be considered to be a positive influence on her .

On DATE GPE again went to stay with the applicant . Ultimately , however , she was returned to her mother by ORG .

On DATE GPE stated , inter alia , that she would prefer to live with the applicant .

On DATE PERSON stated that he wanted to stay with his mother , but was willing to maintain regular contacts with the applicant .

It would appear that in DATE both GPE and PERSON had been staying with the applicant , which is why on DATE he had been ordered by ORG to return them to their mother .

In a separate case , on DATE ORG ruled that PERSON was legally entitled to have GPE removed from the applicant ’s home , where she had stayed temporarily . By DATE this judgment became final and GPE returned to live with her mother .

Following the dissolution of his marriage with PERSON , the applicant remarried and fathered another CARDINAL children .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from hypertension , hypoglycaemia and spondylosis .

On DATE ORG ( GPE sluzba za zaposljavanje ) confirmed that the applicant had been formally unemployed DATE , except briefly DATE and DATE . It would appear , however , that he had worked unofficially during this time and had been an occasional recipient of various social benefits .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that enforcement proceedings “ shall be terminated ex officio if the ... [ title being enforced ] ... has been ... repealed , reversed , annulled , or otherwise rendered ineffective , or the certification of enforceability has been ... revoked ” .

Article CARDINAL provides that the creditor shall have the right to file a complaint against a decision adopted , inter alia , on the basis of Article QUANTITY .

Article CARDINAL , while placing special emphasis on the best interests of the child , states that there shall be an initial period of DATE for voluntary compliance with a child custody and/or access order . Beyond that , however , fines shall be imposed and , ultimately , if necessary , the child shall be taken forcibly , in co - operation with ORG .

LAW entered into force in DATE , thereby repealing LAW CARDINAL . In accordance with LAW , however , all enforcement proceedings instituted prior to DATE are to be concluded pursuant to LAW .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . On an unspecified date the applicant appealed . On DATE the appeal tribunal confirmed the previous decision .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Violations of Art. 5-3;No violation of Art. 5-4 (pre-trial detention);Violation of Art. 5-4 (house arrest);Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and , at the time of the latest information from him , lived in GPE .

In DATE the applicant became the chairman of the board of a credit and savings cooperative ( popular bank ) – Popular BankPekov – having its registered office in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant became the chairman of the board of ORG , having its registered office in GPE .

On an unspecified date in DATE criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant in relation with his duties as chairman of the board of ORG .

On DATE the investigation authorities requested ORG to attach certain assets belonging to the applicant and to ORG , with a view to securing their forfeiture in the event the applicant was convicted . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed that request .

On DATE an investigator at ORG attached further property belonging to ORG .

On DATE the applicant was charged with having engaged in banking business without the requisite licence , contrary to LAW ( “ the LOC ) .

On DATE new charges were preferred against the applicant . It was alleged that he had misappropriated CARDINAL old NORP levs ( ORG ) from the deposits made in ORG , contrary to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG .

It seems that witnesses were questioned on DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE . On an unspecified date an accounting expert report was drawn up .

On DATE the applicant was charged anew under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to drop the charges under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG . On DATE its decision was quashed by ORG insofar as it concerned the charges under LAW , and upheld , insofar as it concerned the charges under LAW .

On DATE the applicant was charged anew under Articles CARDINAL , QUANTITY § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were amended once again to include counts under Articles CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG .

On DATE ORG submitted an indictment against the applicant to ORG .

The first hearing , listed for DATE , was adjourned at the request of the applicant , who presented a doctor ’s note to the effect that he was ill and could not attend , and argued that the copy of the indictment which had been sent to him had pages missing . Another reason for the adjournment was that most of the prosecution ’s witnesses did not show up .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned by reason of the failure of a number of witnesses to show up . The court ordered a new accounting expert report to be drawn up by CARDINAL experts .

A hearing planned for DATE could not take place because the accounting expert report had not yet been drawn up and a number of witnesses were absent . The court fined some of the missing witnesses and ordered that they be brought by force to the next hearing .

At the next hearing , which took place on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , the applicant requested that the case be remitted for the correction of alleged procedural mistakes made during the preliminary investigation . His request was denied . The court heard the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses . However , as a number of other witnesses were absent , the court adjourned the case . It gave leave to the parties to ask the experts additional questions .

A hearing took place on DATE . The court heard several witnesses , but as a number of others were absent , it adjourned the case .

A hearing listed for DATE was adjourned at the request of the applicant , who presented a doctor ’s note to the effect that he was ill and could not attend .

A hearing took place on DATE . The court heard several witnesses . The prosecution stated that certain amounts allegedly misappropriated and squandered by the applicant had been wrongly noted down in the indictment by reason of an error in the calculations . In reply the applicant submitted that the correction of the mistakes in the indictment constituted an amendment of the charges against him and requested an adjournment in order to prepare his defence . The court agreed and adjourned the case to DATE .

On DATE the court heard one witness and adjourned the case at the request of the applicant , holding that in view of the large volume of written evidence , he should be given more time to prepare his defence after the amendment of the charges , even though this amendment consisted only in the correction of an error in the amounts noted down in the indictment .

At the time of the latest information from the parties ( DATE ) the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending before ORG ; a hearing had been listed for DATE .

On DATE , when the applicant was first charged , the investigator dealing with his case ordered him to pay bail in the amount of LAW . The applicant appealed to ORG , stating that this sum was too high and he could not pay it . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his appeal , reasoning that he owned sufficient assets and that the amount was justified in view of the gravity of the offence alleged against him . On the appeals of the applicant that decision was upheld by ORG , but later , on DATE , varied by ORG , which reduced the bail amount to BGL CARDINAL .

On DATE , when preferring new charges of misappropriation of funds against the applicant , the investigator of ORG in charge of the case ordered his pretrial detention . She noted , without providing further detail , that the offence alleged against him was particularly serious , and that there was a risk that he could imperil the investigation . The investigator ’s decision was confirmed by a prosecutor of ORG DATE .

On the appeal of the applicant , on DATE ORG decided to release him on bail , citing his bad health requiring special medical treatment . It seems that the applicant paid the bail amount – BGL DATE the same day and was released .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the applicant ’s case once again ordered his pretrial detention . She reasoned that he had failed to show up for questioning despite having been duly summoned on DATE . Moreover , on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE it had proved impossible to find him at the address indicated by him in GPE . The applicant had also failed to report to ORG DATE , as ordered by the investigator . It could thus be inferred that he had failed to show up without good cause and that it was therefore necessary to take him into custody . That decision was confirmed by a prosecutor of ORG on DATE .

In DATE and DATE the police conducted initially a local and afterwards a nationwide search for the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . It was found that on CARDINAL DATE he had changed his address without notifying the investigation authorities .

The applicant appealed against his pretrial detention to ORG . In her observations in reply to the appeal the investigator in charge of his case stated that the his pre - trial detention was mandatory , as he had been charged with a “ serious intentional offence ” and there were no reasons to apply the exception provided for by paragraph of CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision to keep the applicant in custody . It found that he had failed to notify the investigator in charge of his case of his change of address and to report to ORG on several dates despite the instructions to that effect . On the other hand , the applicant ’s state of health did not require his release . In consideration of this and of the fact that the applicant had been charged with an offence under LAW ORG , i.e. a serious intentional offence , it was justified to maintain him in detention .

On the appeal of the applicant , ORG upheld this decision on DATE .

During DATE the applicant underwent treatment in the prison hospital and was examined several times by medical doctors .

On DATE ORG decided to release the applicant from pretrial detention and place him under house arrest . It found that his remaining in custody could have an irreversible negative impact on his health . The attempts to treat him in the prison hospital had proved futile , whereas his state of health required immediate specialised hospital treatment .

On DATE the applicant informed the investigator in charge of his case that he had to be admitted to a hospital in GPE . He advised the investigator of his address in GPE and obliged to report to ORG every second and DATE .

On DATE and DATE and DATE the investigator in charge of the applicant ’s case confirmed his house arrest of her own motion , without giving reasons .

During the period when the applicant was under house arrest , he changed his address several times for health reasons and because of difficulties in finding employment , each time notifying the investigator in charge of his case by mail .

The applicant was released from house arrest on DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG makes it an offence for an official or a manager to misappropriate public or private funds which are in his or her possession in his or her professional capacity or which he or she has been entrusted with to keep secure or administer . By LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , as in force at the relevant time , if the misappropriated funds were in large amounts , CARDINAL years’ imprisonment could be imposed . If the misappropriated funds were in particularly large amounts and the case was particularly aggravated , the punishment ranged DATE imprisonment ( LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG makes it an offence for an official or a manager to fail to take due care in managing or keeping secure the assets entrusted to him or her , provided this failure results in substantial losses , destruction or dissipation of these assets , or other substantial damage to the undertaking or the economy . At the relevant time the punishment could be up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG makes it an offence to engage in , inter alia , banking business without the requisite licence . By paragraph CARDINAL of that Article , as in force at the relevant time , if the perpetrator had obtained substantial illegal gains therefrom , between CARDINAL and CARDINAL years’ imprisonment could be imposed .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG makes it an offence for an official or a manager to , inter alia , abuse his powers or rights in order to provide a financial benefit to himself or another , provided that this leads to nonnegligible harmful consequences . By paragraph CARDINAL of that Article , as in force at the material time , if the harmful consequences were substantial , the punishment ranged CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

At the relevant time and until the reform of the ORG of DATE an arrested person was brought before an investigator who decided whether or not he or she should be remanded in custody . The investigator ’s decision was subject to approval by a prosecutor . The role of investigators and prosecutors under NORP law has been described in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . ORG , ECHR MONEY ) .

The relevant provisions of the ORG and the relevant case - law of ORG have been summarized in DATE and CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ( extracts ) ) .

A summary of the relevant domestic law may be found in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . PERSON , ECHR CARDINALVIII ( extracts ) ) .

The provisions governing judicial review of pretrial detention at the time when the applicant was held in such are summarised in paragraphs DATE of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ) and paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in ORG ( cited above ) .

Article CARDINALa of the ORG , as enacted in DATE and in force until DATE , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The detainee shall be immediately provided with a possibility of filing an appeal with [ the competent court ] against the [ imposition of detention ] . [ The appeal must be filed ] not DATE after the [ imposition of detention ] . The court shall consider the appeal in an open hearing to which the [ detainee ] shall be summoned . The hearing shall take place not DATE after the receipt of the appeal at the court .

NORP The appeal shall be filed though the organ which has ordered the detention ... .

The court[‘s ruling shall not be ] subject to appeal ... ”

On DATE ORG decided to request ORG to rule on the compatibility of LAW ORG , governing pretrial detention , with , inter alia , LAW . It reasoned that by virtue of LAW was incorporated into NORP law and that all statutory provisions should therefore be in compliance with it . It also stated that when deciding cases before them the NORP courts should take into account the caselaw of ORG CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по ORG № DATE г. на ОСНК на ORG ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 6;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . In DATE he participated as a sprinter in the Olympic Games and from DATE , he was the president of ORG Homburg , a football club playing in ORG .

DATE the applicant was the sole shareholder and sole managing director of the ORG investment trust corporation , which arranged the sale of apartments .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , which reached the applicant on DATE , the GPE police headquarters summoned the applicant to question him on charges of fraud in relation with his business activities for the ORG corporation . Thereby the applicant obtained knowledge of the criminal investigations instituted against him .

On DATE and on DATE ORG joined several different sets of proceedings concerning charges of fraud against the applicant , which had partly been transferred to it by other ORG ( no . CARDINAL Js CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

NORP In DATE , court orders issued in DATE and DATE , authorising the search of the applicant ’s home , those of CARDINAL co - defendants , of the companies led by them and of numerous banks in GPE , were executed and many documents seized .

In DATE the police submitted to ORG an evaluation of the documents seized and the statements of numerous witnesses who had been heard by way of a mailed questionnaire .

DATE and DATE further search orders , inter alia against the applicant and his company , were executed .

On DATE the GPE police headquarters , having heard ten witnesses since DATE , sent back the files to ORG with a summary note on the results of their investigations .

On DATE ORG , having questioned the applicant twice and following unsuccessful negotiations with the defence with a view to discontinuing the proceedings under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , preferred an indictment ( running to CARDINAL pages ) against the applicant with ORG . It charged the applicant , who was represented by counsel , with CARDINAL cases of aggravated fraud and attempted fraud , committed together with his co - defendants PERSON and NORP between DATE and DATE . The applicant , acting as the ORG corporation ’s managing director , was accused of having incited investors to buy apartments at a price far above their market value . According to the indictment , the applicant had obtained the investors’ consent to buy the apartments by misleading them about their true value and by orally undertaking , in particular , to repurchase the apartments after DATE at the ORG request , a guarantee which he never intended to keep .

On DATE ORG opened the main proceedings in respect of CARDINAL charges of aggravated fraud and attempted fraud against the applicant , who was represented by defence counsel throughout the proceedings .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE the president of the chamber of ORG noted that due to CARDINAL other sets of proceedings pending before ORG which had to be granted priority as the defendants concerned were in custody , it was not possible to fix dates for the hearing in the applicant ’s case .

On DATE ORG ordered CARDINAL experts to submit reports on the market value of CARDINAL apartments at the time they were bought by the investors . The expert reports were submitted to ORG between DATE and DATE .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and on DATE , DATE and DATE the president of the chamber of ORG noted that due to hearings in other proceedings which were granted priority as the defendants concerned were in custody , in particular the hearings in the proceedings against PERSON and others , against ORG . , it was not possible to fix dates for the hearing in the applicant ’s case .

On DATE the applicant requested that the proceedings against him be discontinued on account of their excessive length , if necessary after he had complied with a condition for discontinuance , pursuant to LAW .

As proposed by ORG , the applicant and ORG subsequently entered into negotiations about discontinuing the proceedings in exchange for the payment of a sum of money ( see LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) which lasted until DATE . However , they were unable to reach agreement .

From DATE until DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings in which it questioned QUANTITY witnesses and CARDINAL experts . It stressed that in its view , the case appeared to be suitable for discontinuance in accordance with LAW , but the prosecution and the defence were unable to reach a settlement .

On DATE the applicant requested that the proceedings be discontinued pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) because their excessive length was an impediment to the proceedings ( NORP ) .

On DATE ORG , having heard the parties , discontinued the proceedings pursuant to LAW . It ordered the ORG to bear the costs of the proceedings and the applicant ’s necessary expenses pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court found that the length of the proceedings constituted a procedural impediment to their continuation , as proceeding with them would breach LAW .

ORG found that it would not be possible to deliver a judgment in due course and before all offences became time - barred in DATE . It was unclear at that stage of the proceedings whether the applicant would have to be convicted or acquitted . Even assuming that the applicant was found guilty of fraud , his guilt could not be considered serious , notably because the investors who had bought the apartments had in fact received the tax benefits they had sought by their investment .

ORG ’s notification thereof and their further expected duration was excessive and violated the right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by LAW , read in conjunction with the rule of law , and LAW . This warranted the discontinuance of the proceedings . The duration of the proceedings , which had lasted for CARDINAL and a half years , had been caused by structural problems at ORG and ORG , which were understaffed . The applicant had not caused any delays in the proceedings . The proceedings were quite complex , but this did not sufficiently explain their length . The ongoing proceedings imposed a burden on the applicant because there had been several , partly polemical , press articles about the case , so that his business activities kept being adversely affected .

ORG found that it was not possible to take into consideration the excessive duration of the proceedings when fixing the applicant ’s sentence , as this presupposed his conviction . The applicant could , however , no longer be convicted , as continuing the proceedings would breach LAW . Moreover , if the proceedings resulted in the applicant being acquitted , it would likewise be impossible to consider the length of the proceedings when fixing the sentence .

On DATE ORG , allowing the appeal on points of law lodged by ORG , quashed the judgment of ORG and remitted the case to ORG . It found that it was not in a position fully to examine whether there was in fact a procedural impediment to the continuation of the proceedings for failure to comply with the reasonable time requirement .

Having heard the parties at an oral hearing , ORG stated that in very exceptional circumstances a violation of LAW , taken in conjunction with the rule of law , could lead to an impediment to the proceedings .

According to ORG there had been a violation of LAW in the present case . The length of the investigation and court proceedings , which was attributable to the organisation within the judiciary , had been excessive , and the applicant had no responsibility for it . However , ORG had failed sufficiently to ascertain the extent of the applicant ’s guilt . Without that knowledge , it was impossible for ORG to assess whether the violation of LAW was so severe that it could neither be compensated when fixing the sentence nor by discontinuing the proceedings pursuant to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and consequently was a procedural impediment to continuing the proceedings . Having regard to the contents of the case file and assuming the speedy processing of the case by ORG , it still appeared possible to take into consideration the violation of LAW when fixing the sentence .

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG against this judgment ( see CARDINAL . below ) .

On DATE ORG , having held forty - three hearings , acquitted the applicant . It ordered that the ORG bear the costs of the proceedings and the applicant ’s necessary expenses pursuant to LAW . It further held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for damage caused by the searches of his home and the seizure of his property pursuant to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

Having heard CARDINAL witnesses , ORG found that the applicant was not guilty of fraud , because he had not misled or caused his staff to mislead the purchasers of apartments about their true value or by giving a binding guarantee to repurchase the apartments .

On DATE the judgment became final , ORG having withdrawn its appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a complaint with ORG against the judgment of ORG . He argued in particular that remitting the case to ORG and continuing the proceedings despite the fact that his right to be heard within a reasonable time had been disregarded throughout the proceedings further violated his right to a fair trial . Following the judgment of ORG , he further submitted that he had suffered pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him despite his acquittal . NORP law did not provide for adequate compensation for this .

On DATE ORG , having stayed the proceedings between DATE and DATE at the applicant ’s request awaiting the outcome of the proceedings in the criminal courts , refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . It argued that the complaint was inadmissible because following his acquittal , the applicant no longer had a legitimate interest in a finding that the judgment of ORG had violated his rights guaranteed by LAW .

ORG found that the applicant was no longer prejudiced by the judgment delivered by ORG as the criminal proceedings against him had been terminated by his final acquittal . Assuming that the constitutional complaint would be well - founded , the violation of fundamental rights caused by the judgment of ORG would not have severe consequences for the applicant . His basic rights had notably been breached by the duration of the proceedings until the judgment of ORG . Following this judgment , the criminal proceedings had lasted for DATE , but had ended with his acquittal and therefore his rehabilitation . Moreover , ORG had clearly stated in its judgment that the duration of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had breached LAW . For lack of a sufficient statement of facts by ORG , that court had only found itself not to be in a position to draw the legal conclusion that there was a procedural impediment to continuing the proceedings , even though it acknowledged for the first time that this was a possible result of a breach of LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the discontinuance of criminal investigation or court proceedings on grounds of insignificance . According to that provision , criminal proceedings may be discontinued if they concern an offence for which it is not mandatory to impose a sentence of DATE imprisonment ( PERSON ) , if the defendant ’s guilt would be of a minor nature and if there was no public interest in criminal prosecution . If the indictment has already been preferred , the court may only discontinue the proceedings with the consent of both ORG and the defendant ( LAW ) .

Pursuant to LAW , ORG may discontinue criminal proceedings concerning offences for which the regular minimum punishment is DATE imprisonment at the investigation stage with the defendant ’s consent , if the latter complies with certain conditions . These conditions must be suitable to remove the public interest in criminal prosecution and may not be in conflict with the severity of the defendant ’s guilt . Such conditions notably entail the payment of a sum of money to a non - profit - making organisation or to the ORG . The court which has jurisdiction to open the main proceedings must consent under certain circumstances . If the indictment has already been preferred with that court , the latter may discontinue the proceedings under the conditions set out in § CARDINAL with the consent of both ORG and the defendant ( LAW ) .

Pursuant to LAW , the discontinuance of the proceedings shall be pronounced in a judgment if there is a procedural impediment to the continuation of the proceedings .

Pursuant to LAW the costs of the criminal proceedings and the defendant ’s necessary expenses shall be borne by the ORG if the defendant is acquitted , if the court refuses to open the main proceedings against him or if the proceedings against him are discontinued . According to LAW of the said Code , the court may decline to award the defendant ’s necessary expenses against the ORG where the defendant has avoided conviction merely because of an impediment to the proceedings ( NORP ) .

Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the necessary expenses of a participant in the proceedings shall also comprise compensation for an inevitable loss of time in accordance with the provisions on compensation of witnesses ( no . CARDINAL ) and the fees and expenses of a lawyer in so far as these are to be reimbursed under LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) . LAW and Experts ( ORG über die Entschädigung PERSON ) , in its version in force DATE and CARDINAL June CARDINAL , on the compensation payable to witnesses for their loss of earnings , stipulates in paragraph CARDINAL , first sentence , that TIME of lost working time shall be compensated at a rate of CARDINAL to thirteen euros ( ORG ) . LAW , in its version in force at the relevant time , stipulates in particular that the fees and expenses of the lawyer of the successful party as fixed by law shall be reimbursed . Before CARDINAL July CARDINAL , the fees and expenses payable to a lawyer were fixed in ORG on Lawyers’ Fees ( PERSON - ordnung – BRAGO ) . Lawyer and client could , however , agree on a higher remuneration than that payable under LAW ( see its section CARDINAL ) .

Compensation for damage caused by wrongful prosecution is covered by LAW ( PERSON über die PERSON für Strafverfolgungsmaßnahmen ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of that Act , a defendant is notably entitled to compensation for damage incurred by certain specified measures of criminal prosecution if he is acquitted , if the proceedings against him are discontinued or if the court refuses to open the main proceedings against him . The measures of criminal prosecution for which compensation may be granted notably comprise pre - trial detention and searches and seizures of property .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Act on Compensation for Measures of Criminal Prosecution stipulates that pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the criminal prosecution measure is compensated for , as well as non - pecuniary damage in the event of a deprivation of liberty by a court decision . Once the finding that the ORG is under a duty to compensate has become final , the compensation claim must be submitted within DATE with ORG which last was in charge of the investigations at first instance ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the said Act ) .

Pursuant to LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW , an individual has the right to be compensated by the ORG for any damage arising from a breach of official duty committed by a public servant . These provisions are also applicable to a breach of duty in giving judgment on an action if the breach consists in a refusal to discharge a function or a delay in performing it contrary to professional duty .

Damages are afforded to the individual concerned in accordance with Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW . By LAW , in the version in force until DATE , compensation for non - pecuniary damage could be awarded only if it was provided for by law . In this connection , LAW , which was in force until DATE , provided for non - pecuniary compensation only in the event of physical injury , damage caused to someone ’s health or deprivation of liberty . The new LAW , as in force since CARDINAL DATE , which replaced LAW , has not introduced any amendments relevant to the matters in issue in the instant case .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are NORP nationals . The first applicant , Mr PERSON GPE ( application no . DATE , lodged on DATE ) , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL lodged on DATE ) , was born in DATE and lives in ORG , GPE .

NORP The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants sued the ORG authorities in domestic courts and obtained judgments in their favour .

In the case of GPE , ORG of GPE on CARDINAL DATE awarded the applicant CARDINAL lump sums , of CARDINAL and MONEY ( RUB ) , plus the sums of RUB CARDINAL and DATE , to be paid on a DATE basis on account of the applicant 's participation in the cleaning - up operations following the GPE disaster . The court ordered that the DATE payments be subsequently adjusted ( index - linked ) in accordance with the law .

In the case of ORG , ORG of GPE on DATE awarded the applicant a lump sum of RUB CARDINAL in salary arrears on account of his service on a territory subject to emergency rule .

The judgments in the applicants ' favour became binding and enforceable on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively but remain unexecuted , either fully or in part . According to Mr GPE , the DATE payments have not been index - linked by the debtor authority ( ORG ) , contrary to the court order . In the case of PERSON , the defendant authority ( ORG of GPE ) failed to pay any of the judgment debt .

On DATE the ORG delivered the Burdov pilot judgment ( see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ... ) . The pilot judgment ordered the respondent ORG , inter alia , to set up an effective domestic remedy which would secure adequate and sufficient redress for non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments . The ORG also decided to adjourn , for DATE from the date on which the judgment became final , the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non - enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the ORG authorities ( see PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , cited above , § CARDINAL , and point CARDINAL of the operative part ) .

Consequently , like numerous other persons in the same position , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON were informed by letters of CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively that their cases would remain adjourned until DATE and that the subsequent procedure would be determined in the light of the implementation of the pilot judgment by the NORP authorities .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that in response to the pilot judgment CARDINAL federal laws had been enacted , introducing a new domestic remedy in respect of lengthy judicial proceedings and delayed enforcement of domestic judgments against the ORG . The laws entered into force on DATE ( “ the LAW ” , see part B below ) .

In DATE ORG informed the applicants in the present cases and all other applicants in the same position of the new remedy , advising them to make use of it within the DATE time - limit set by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a letter of DATE Mr PERSON informed the ORG in response that he had brought proceedings under LAW and obtained a judgment in his favour . On DATE ORG granted the applicant 's claim in part . It found that the NORP authorities had violated his right by delaying the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and awarded him RUB CARDINAL in compensation . The court took account of the amount of outstanding arrears due ( RUB CARDINAL ) , the applicant 's claims ( RUB MONEY ) , the ambiguity of the domestic case - law concerning the index for adjustment of court awards , considerations of reasonableness and equity and judgments of ORG in similar cases .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against that decision , considering , inter alia , that the compensation award was insufficient and that the regional court had failed explicitly to acknowledge a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , Mr PERSON indicated that he would lodge a claim with the domestic court under LAW and keep the ORG informed of any new fact .

Notwithstanding these developments , the applicants explicitly maintained their applications before the ORG . They challenged the capacity of the new remedy to provide adequate redress . The new domestic remedy at best allows , in their view , some inadequate compensation for delays but does not ensure the ORG 's ultimate compliance with the judgment . Mr ORG argued , in addition , that the compensation award made on DATE by the domestic court was substantially lower than the amounts awarded by the ORG in similar circumstances . More generally , he submitted that the consideration of his case by the ORG would remedy the uncertainty of the indexation requirements stemming from the ambiguous domestic case - law in this area .

On DATE ORG adopted a ORG , no . CARDINAL-ФЗ , “ On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a ORG within a Reasonable Time ” ( “ LAW ” ) . On DATE the ORG adopted LAW , no . CARDINAL-ФЗ , introducing a number of corresponding changes to the relevant federal laws . Both laws entered into force on DATE .

LAW entitles a party concerned ( “ an applicant ” ) to bring an action for compensation of the violation of his or her right to a trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement within a reasonable time of a judgment establishing a debt to be recovered from the State budgets ( LAW , § CARDINAL ) . Such compensation can only be awarded if the alleged violation took place independently of the applicant 's own actions except those taken in the circumstances of force majeure . A breach of the statutory time - limits for examination of the case does not amount per se to a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time or right to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) . A compensation award is not dependent on the competent authorities ' fault ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

The compensation is awarded in monetary form ( LAW , § CARDINAL ) . The amount of the compensation should be determined by courts according to the applicant '

Section CARDINAL sets out the rules of jurisdiction and procedure . It states in particular that a claim for compensation on account of lengthy enforcement of a judgment may be lodged prior to the end of the procedure for enforcement of a judgment but not DATE after the expiry of the statutory time - limit for enforcement and not DATE after the termination of the procedure for enforcement .

A court decision granting compensation is subject to immediate enforcement ( LAW , § CARDINAL ) . It may be appealed against in accordance with the procedural legislation in force ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) . The costs of payment of compensation awards are included in the federal budget , in the budgets of federal entities and in local budgets ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

All individuals who have complained to ORG that their right to a trial within a reasonable time or to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time has been violated may claim compensation in domestic courts under LAW within DATE of its entry into force , provided ORG has not ruled on the admissibility of the complaint ( LAW CARDINAL ) .