Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13+3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE , and currently lives in GPE , the GPE .

Until DATE the applicant was the deputy director of a transport warehouse in the city of GPE , GPE . In DATE he joined a political party and began his political career . When the NORP - Azerbaijani conflict in GPE - Karabakh broke out , he joined the national army and became one of its commanders . In DATE , at the time of the outbreak of a civil and political confrontation in the country , he returned from ORG to his native GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant put forward a proposal for an autonomous political formation in the south of GPE which would , in addition to GPE itself , incorporate several adjacent regions . The central authorities considered this idea unacceptable . On DATE the applicant , together with his supporters , proclaimed the creation of the so - called “ FAC ” ( “ PERSON Muxtar Respublikası ” ) within GPE . The applicant was elected its “ President ” . At the same time , he attempted to take charge of the military units located in GPE , as well as to depose and arrest some regional public officials appointed by the central authorities . Following this , certain public disorder evolved , during which several people were killed .

At DATE , the applicant was arrested and detained in the detention centre of ORG . The investigation against him led to accusations of , inter alia , high treason and use of armed forces against the constitutional institutions of the ORG .

In DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL other detainees , absconded from the detention centre . The applicant went into hiding until DATE when he was finally caught and arrested for the second time .

According to the applicant , at all times while in pre - trial detention , he was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment . He was not allowed to see a doctor . Under the threat of his wife 's arrest and criminal prosecution , he was compelled to give self - incriminating testimony . His close friends and relatives , including his wife and son , were also subjected to persecution and physical ill - treatment by the authorities . Fearing further persecution , his wife and son left the country and sought asylum in the GPE .

NORP The applicant 's criminal case was examined by ORG of ORG ( ORG ) sitting in first instance . He was tried together with CARDINAL other accused persons . On DATE the applicant was convicted of high treason ( DATE imprisonment with confiscation of property ) , misappropriation of official power ( DATE imprisonment ) , illegal deprivation of liberty ( DATE imprisonment ) , unauthorised possession of weapons ( DATE imprisonment ) , absconding from custody ( DATE imprisonment ) , and creation of illegal armed units ( death penalty with confiscation of property ) . By way of a merger of sentences , the applicant was sentenced to death and confiscation of property . Being a decision of the highest tribunal , this judgment was final and was not subject to appeal at the material time .

Following the conviction , in DATE the applicant was transferred to the CARDINALth Corpus of Bayil Prison designated for convicts sentenced to death . Despite the existence of the death penalty as a form of punishment under the criminal law applicable at that time , the NORP authorities had pursued a de facto policy of moratorium on the execution of the death penalty since DATE until the abolition of the death penalty in DATE .

On DATE ORG adopted the LAW to LAW , LAW of GPE in Connection with LAW in GPE , which amended all the relevant domestic legal provisions , replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment . The penalties of all the convicts sentenced to death , including the applicant , were to be automatically commuted to life imprisonment .

NORP Despite this new penalty , the applicant was kept in the CARDINALth Corpus of Bayil Prison ( the former “ death row ” ) up to DATE . According to the applicant , the conditions of imprisonment in FAC were harsh and inhuman , and beatings frequently occurred . He suffered from various serious diseases and could not get necessary and adequate medical treatment ( see section C. below ) . In DATE he was transferred to the Gobustan High Security Prison ( PERSON ; hereinafter “ FAC ” ) for prisoners serving life sentences .

In DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter “ CCrP ” ) and new Criminal Code of GPE were adopted . Before the new ORG 's entry into force on DATE , on DATE ORG passed a transitional law allowing the lodging of an appeal under the new CCrP against the final judgments delivered in accordance with the old criminal procedure rules .

Shortly after this , at the time of GPE 's admission to ORG , the applicant was recognised as a “ political prisoner ” by independent experts of the Secretary General ( in the experts ' relevant reports the applicant 's name was spelled as “ FAC ” , possibly following the NORP transliteration of his name ) . GPE has made a commitment to either release or give a re - trial to all persons identified as “ political prisoners ” by these experts .

Following the reform of the domestic criminal and criminal procedure law in DATE and in the light of GPE 's undertaking before ORG to review the cases of “ political prisoners ” , on DATE the Prosecutor General filed an appellate protest ( apellyasiya protesti ) with ORG , requesting the court to allow the re - examination of the applicant 's case . On DATE ORG upheld this request and allowed an appeal to be lodged against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged his appellate complaint with ORG . He asked the court to initiate a new investigation into the case , to hold a public hearing in an ordinary courtroom with the participation of media representatives and officials of foreign organisations , to obtain the attendance and examination of certain witnesses , and to evaluate the political events in the NORP region in DATE . On DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant 's requests for a new investigation and a public hearing , but dismissed the remaining requests .

The hearings on the merits were to be held at the detention centre of ORG . However , on DATE ORG changed the location of the hearings to Gobustan Prison since , as explained by the court , repair works were being carried out in the ORG 's detention centre . The applicant protested against this decision by refusing to attend any court hearings held in LOC . On DATE ORG ordered his compulsory attendance .

ORG hearings on the merits took place in FAC , which was equipped with a courtroom with a separate deliberation room , the total surface area of which was QUANTITY . According to the Government , this courtroom contained CARDINAL seats for observers .

The parties were in disagreement about the actual distance between LOC and GPE ( QUANTITY according to the Government and QUANTITY according to the applicant ) . No regular public transportation from GPE to the prison was available . Because of the prison 's strict access regime , persons wishing to attend the hearings as observers had to ask the presiding judge for permission to attend the hearing . The presiding judge , in turn , applied to the prison authorities with a request to grant such persons access to the prison . Observers who were granted access to the hearings were subject to a body search before entering the prison 's courtroom .

ORG held CARDINAL hearings and examined testimonies from CARDINAL witnesses , of which the statements of CARDINAL persons , given during the first - instance trial , were read out during the hearings .

NORP In the course of the appellate proceedings , the applicant submitted a number of petitions in which he , inter alia , challenged the impartiality of the court , requested that the court permit audio and video recording of the hearings , that the hearings be held in public and away from the high security prison , and that testimonies of additional witnesses and other additional evidence be admitted . The majority of these petitions were rejected by ORG .

On DATE ORG delivered its final judgment concerning the applicant 's criminal case . ORG revoked the previous judgment of CARDINAL DATE in its part concerning the confiscation of the applicant 's property . ORG , however , upheld the applicant 's conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment , pursuant to the criminal law applicable at the time the crimes were committed , but subject to the amendments introduced by LAW DATE .

The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with ORG . In his appeal , he complained , inter alia , that ORG had breached material and procedural rules of domestic law , that the trial held in LOC had not been public and fair , and that the lifeimprisonment sentence had been unlawful .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the applicant 's cassation appeal . The court retained the penalty of life imprisonment , but partly modified ORG judgment by requalifying the underlying offence under LAW , instead of applying the old LAW of DATE as amended by LAW DATE . As to the applicant 's complaint concerning the alleged lack of publicity of the appellate proceedings , ORG found that this complaint was unsubstantiated , as all necessary measures had been taken to ensure the possibility for independent observers to attend the trial .

The following account has been drawn up from the medical records submitted by the ORG , inasmuch as the information contained therein was discernible .

After his arrest in DATE , the applicant was detained in the temporary detention facility of ORG until DATE . No medical examinations were carried out on him during this time .

On DATE he was transferred to ORG . CARDINAL and detained there until DATE . On DATE he was examined by a physician who noted that the applicant did not have tuberculosis and that no injuries could be observed on his person . The applicant also informed the physician that he had had CARDINAL heart attacks in DATE .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in the detention facility of ORG . It appears that , during this period , he requested to see a physician several times and complained about heartaches , chest pains and worsening of eyesight . However , no serious diseases were diagnosed .

According to the applicant , in FAC , where he was imprisoned from DATE to DATE , he was at various periods held in one cell together with CARDINAL other prisoners whose names were PERSON ( or PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . These persons were already seriously ill with tuberculosis and have all died since then .

Throughout DATE the applicant complained several times of chest pains . In DATE the applicant was examined several times by a prison doctor and diagnosed with several ailments such as stenocardia , diffuse bronchitis and asthenia . He was QUANTITY tall and weighed QUANTITY around that time .

On DATE the prison doctors diagnosed the applicant with pulmonary tuberculosis . On DATE he underwent an X - ray examination which confirmed the diagnosis of “ focal tuberculosis of the left lungs ” . He was prescribed various medicines , including streptomycin , rifampicin , haemodez , multivitamins and vitamin B. A subsequent medical examination carried out on DATE revealed that the disease was still active . On DATE it was observed that the disease went into remission .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with “ tuberculosis in the remission phase ” and prescribed isoniazid , rifampicin and multivitamins . On DATE he was prescribed streptomycin and rifampicin .

In DATE the applicant was visited by representatives of ORG who expressed their concern about the applicant 's state of health and requested the authorities to take necessary measures . After this , on DATE , another medical examination by the prison doctors revealed the reactivation of tuberculosis and the necessity of in - patient treatment for the applicant . On DATE , the applicant was hospitalised in ORG . CARDINAL for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis , located in the PERSON settlement of GPE .

According to the applicant , he was ill - treated by the hospital 's doctors and started receiving medical treatment only on DATE . The treatment was based on ORG DOTS ( Directly Observed Treatment , Short - course ) programme . The applicant was treated with isoniazid , ethambutol , rifampicin , streptomycin , pyrazinamide and multivitamins . On DATE the applicant was judged to be “ clinically recovered ” , as the symptoms of tuberculosis were found to be mostly resolved . On DATE the applicant was checked out of the hospital and returned to his prison cell . The actual duration of the applicant 's in - patient treatment in the hospital comprised DATE .

On DATE , after his transfer to FAC , the applicant complained to the prison doctor about breathlessness , headaches , sweating , coughing and chest pains and was prescribed certain medications such as isoniazid , rifampicin and others . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with “ focal tuberculosis of the left lungs in the consolidation phase ” and streptococcal impetigo ( a skin infection ) and prescribed with medication treatment for the impetigo . On DATE new medications were prescribed and it appears that the skin infection was subsequently cured .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with chronic bronchopneumonia and chronic enterocolitis .

NORP From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was on a hunger strike protesting against the alleged unfairness of the proceedings in ORG . During this time he was visited by a doctor on a DATE basis .

On DATE , following his complaints about pain in his back , he was diagnosed with radiculitis and prescribed treatment with mustard plasters . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with “ neurocirculatory dystonia of hypertonic type ” and prescribed captopril , adelphan , papaverin , dibazol and other medication .

On DATE he was examined by a phthisiatrician and complained about coughing , secretion of large amounts of phlegm , headaches , fever and general weakness . He was diagnosed with acute chronic bronchitis and prescribed kanamycin , biseptol , vitamin B and other medication .

On DATE , while the appellate proceedings were underway , the applicant 's lawyer wrote a letter to the President of ORG , claiming that the applicant 's health condition had deteriorated and asking that a medical examination of the applicant be arranged . On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL prison doctors who noted in their report that they did not establish any deterioration in the applicant 's condition .

On DATE , pursuant to the same request , the applicant was examined by several prison doctors with the participation of specialists from ORG of ORG ( “ LAW ” ) , which at the material time was the subdivision of ORG . The applicant was diagnosed with “ focal tuberculosis in the consolidation phase ” , atherocardiosclerosis and internal haemorrhoids . The doctors concluded that neither out - patient nor in - patient treatment were required and advised the applicant to go on a diet and take warm sitz baths ( a type of bath in which only the hips and buttocks are soaked in water ) , without specifying the type of diet and frequency of sitz baths . According to the applicant , prisoners had no access to hot water in their cells in LOC and were allowed to take a hot shower once DATE .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a prison doctor who deemed his condition satisfactory and considered that there was no necessity for in - patient treatment .

On DATE the applicant was medically examined following his complaints about general weakness , chest pain and headaches . He was diagnosed with ischemia , atherocardiosclerosis and stenocardia and prescribed several types of medication , including corvalol and aspirin .

On DATE the applicant complained about pain in the anal area and was diagnosed with haemorrhoids .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer made another request for a medical examination . This request was repeated on DATE . By a letter of DATE , the Head of ORG , Mr PERSON , responded that the applicant had been examined on DATE , that his condition was satisfactory , that in - patient treatment was not required and that he was receiving adequate symptomatic outpatient treatment .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with hypertension and bronchopneumonia , and prescribed a number of medications .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an independent physician of ORG who diagnosed him with hypertension , chronic bronchitis and osteochondrosis and prescribed several types of medication .

On DATE , having examined the applicant 's medical records , the Head of ORG , issued a medical report ( the “ ORG ” ) , in which he expressed his medical opinion on the applicant 's state of health .

Most of ORG consisted of a detailed summary of the applicant 's medical record in prison during the period from DATE . The report mentioned the medical examinations carried out and the treatment prescribed on each occasion . ORG stated that each disease had been treated with due care and , when necessary , the applicant had been provided with proper medication and other appropriate treatment , including the in - patient treatment for tuberculosis . The report suggested that , as a result of such treatment , the applicant 's state of health had improved . In conclusion , it was stated that , by the time of issuance of the report , the applicant 's state of health was satisfactory and that he needed neither out - patient nor in - patient treatment .

Pursuant to another request of the applicant 's lawyer to provide urgent medical attention to the applicant , the applicant was examined by the doctors of ORG and ORG on DATE . It was observed that he had atherocardiosclerosis , moderate changes in the myocardium , focal tuberculosis in the hardening phase , and residual signs of a craniocerebral trauma . The doctors decided that the applicant 's condition was satisfactory and he needed neither in - patient nor out - patient treatment .

Upon the applicant 's request , on DATE the Chairman of ORG of ORG of the Helsinki ORG issued an independent medical expert opinion ( the “ ORG Opinion ” ) based on the applicant 's medical records . The expert noted that , in general , as a result of irregular and inappropriate medical examinations , the applicant had been given chaotic and insufficiently substantiated diagnoses and that the prescribed out - patient and in - patient medical treatment had been totally ineffective .

Specifically , the expert held that the belated initial detection of tuberculosis and imprecise diagnosis had led to the aggravation of the disease . Instead of the necessary etiopathogenetic therapy , the applicant had been given inadequate symptomatic treatment during a period of DATE before he was finally diagnosed with tuberculosis , resulting in the progressive character of the disease .

NORP The treatment given during DATE did not correspond to any standards of active tuberculosis treatment , including the standards for the ORG programme . As a result , until DATE , the disease actually progressed and affected larger areas of the applicant 's lungs . Although in DATE it was noted in the medical records that the disease went into remission , this fact was not clinically confirmed . As a result of such inappropriate treatment , in DATE the applicant 's condition deteriorated and required hospitalisation . The in - patient treatment did not correspond to the standards of the ORG programme , as it was shorter than required and the medicines were under - dosed . The necessary continuation phase of the ORG treatment was not carried out after the applicant was checked out of the hospital .

The expert further noted that the treatment subsequent to the applicant 's hospitalisation was also inadequate . In particular , after the medical examination of DATE , he was prescribed certain medicines based solely on his complaints and without a diagnosis . The dosage of medicines and term of treatment were arbitrary . Moreover , it was not realistically possible to follow certain types of prescribed treatment , such as a diet and sitz baths , in the prison conditions .

The expert also noted that , because of the applicant 's strict imprisonment conditions , he was deprived of the opportunity to receive urgent medical aid during the DATE closure of his wing of FAC from TIME of DATE .

Finally , the expert concluded that , as of the time of issuance of the HCA Opinion on DATE , due to intermittent arbitrary antibacteriological treatment , the tuberculosis was not cured and appeared to acquire a chronic character with interchanging periods of remission and re - activation . The applicant had not received a precise and clinically confirmed diagnosis as well as any necessary and appropriate medical treatment corresponding to such diagnosis .

According to the applicant , as the authorities in Bayil Prison did not allow him to possess any writing material , he was unable to file any written complaints concerning the lack of appropriate medical treatment until he was transferred to FAC on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant made an attempt to file , through a lawyer , a complaint with a first instance court , claiming compensation from the authorities for the damage caused to his health by the allegedly harsh prison conditions and lack of necessary medical treatment . However , according to the applicant , the court refused to accept the complaint without specifying any reason .

In DATE the applicant filed , with ORG , a lawsuit against ORG , demanding monetary compensation for deterioration of his health in the prison . On DATE the ORG refused to admit the lawsuit , because the applicant failed to designate ORG as a co - defendant . The court noted that , under domestic law , any claim for monetary compensation from the ORG must be directed against ORG .

In DATE the applicant filed the lawsuit again , specifically noting ORG as a co - defendant . On DATE the ORG refused to admit the lawsuit for lack of territorial jurisdiction . According to the court , lawsuits against ORG were subject to the territorial jurisdiction of ORG . The applicant challenged this decision in ORG .

At the same time , he filed a similar lawsuit with ORG . On DATE the ORG refused to admit the lawsuit on the ground that the applicant had failed to properly formulate and legally substantiate his claim .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant 's appeal from ORG decision of DATE . ORG quashed this decision , holding that ORG had territorial jurisdiction to examine the case , because CARDINAL of the codefendants , ORG , was located within that court 's jurisdiction . Accordingly , the case was remitted to ORG for examination on the merits .

DATE , after the applicant 's release and emigration ( see section E. below ) , ORG fixed the date of examination of the case as DATE .

According to a copy of ORG decision of DATE submitted by the Government , the court decided , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , to “ leave without examination ” the claim against ORG and ORG due to failure of both the claimant and the defendants to attend the hearing . The claimant 's name was specified as “ PERSON GPE oglu ” . It appears that the applicant became aware of the existence of this decision for the first time after the Government submitted its copy to the ORG .

DATE . On DATE the President issued a pardon decree releasing the applicant , among CARDINAL other convicted persons , from serving the remainder of his prison sentence . On DATE , the President issued an instructive order granting the applicant 's request to terminate his NORP citizenship .

According to the applicant , he made this “ request to terminate his NORP citizenship ” under pressure by the authorities in exchange for his pardon and subsequent release . On DATE he wrote a letter to the President in which he withdrew his earlier “ requests ” of such nature which he claimed to have made under pressure .

The applicant was released from the prison only on DATE . He was immediately taken to the airport , where he boarded a flight to the GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied for a residence permit in the GPE and was granted such permit on DATE .

The applicant sought medical treatment in the GPE . According to the records submitted , during medical examinations in DATE and DATE , he complained of pains in the chest , shortness of breath , coughing , headaches , dizziness and concentration disturbances . It appears that , as of DATE , the applicant still continued to be tested for tuberculosis .

DATE ) of LAW provides as follows :

“ No one shall be subjected to torture or ill - treatment . No one shall be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment . ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the law provides as follows :

“ Judgments and other final decisions delivered by first - instance courts under the [ old ] Code of Criminal Procedure ... before the entry into force of this [ new ] Code , may be reconsidered by an appellate court or ORG in accordance with Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the [ new ] Code of Criminal Procedure . ”

According to LAW , criminal proceedings in all courts shall be open to the general public , except where it is necessary to protect state , professional or commercial secrets , as well as personal or family secrets of individuals . Article PERSON provides that , during a preliminary hearing , the appellate court decides whether the merits of the appellate complaint will be examined in a public or closed hearing . The Code specifies a number of situations where the public can be excluded from the hearing , such as in cases involving evidence disclosing personal or family secrets ( Article CARDINAL ) , or a state secret ( Article CARDINAL ) , or a professional or commercial secret ( Article CARDINAL ) .

DATE . The following are the extracts from the Standards of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) ( ORG ( DATE ) DATE , pp . CARDINAL ) , in the part concerning healthcare services in prisons :

“ CARDINAL . While in custody , prisoners should be able to have access to a doctor at any time , irrespective of their detention regime . ... The health care service should be so organised as to enable requests to consult a doctor to be met without undue delay . ...

A prison 's health care service should at least be able to provide regular outpatient consultations and emergency treatment ( of course , in addition there may often be a hospital - type unit with beds ) . ...

As regards emergency treatment , a doctor should always be on call . Further , someone competent to provide first aid should always be present on prison LOC , preferably someone with a recognised nursing qualification .

Out - patient treatment should be supervised , as appropriate , by health care staff ; in many cases it is not sufficient for the provision of follow - up care to depend upon the initiative being taken by the prisoner . ...

A prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care , as well as appropriate diets , physiotherapy , rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility , in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community . Provision in terms of medical , nursing and technical staff , as well as LOC , installations and equipment , should be geared accordingly .

There should be appropriate supervision of the pharmacy and of the distribution of medicines . Further , the preparation of medicines should always be entrusted to qualified staff ( pharmacist / nurse , etc . ) . ”

The ORG report on DATE visit to GPE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... the brief visit to the Specialised medical establishment No . CARDINAL for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis was of a targeted nature , and focused on the ward for prisoners with multi - resistant tuberculosis . Set up in DATE , the establishment receives for treatment both remand and sentenced prisoners diagnosed to be ORG - positive . The treatment continues DATE along the lines of the WHO - recommended DOTS strategy , in close co - operation with the ICRC . ... At the time of the visit , the establishment had a capacity of CARDINAL places distributed into CARDINAL wards ; CARDINAL new wards – CARDINAL for women , with CARDINAL places , and another for men , with CARDINAL places - had been inaugurated DATE before the delegation 's visit . The delegation observed that the new wards were of a very high standard .

Prisoners with multi - resistant tuberculosis were accommodated in DATE , which was holding CARDINAL inmates at the time of the visit , for an official capacity of CARDINAL . Some of them had been there since DATE . The delegation was informed that upon the expiry of their sentences , multi - resistant prisoners would be referred to specialised establishments under ORG . ... Conditions in the ward were satisfactory : the dormitories were spacious , clean , well - lit and ventilated . ...

At the outset of the visit , the ward 's head doctor informed the delegation that multi - resistant patients received only symptomatic treatment ( e.g. vitamins ) . The ORG treatment had not yet been introduced , although ORG , in cooperation with the ICRC , was apparently working on this issue . However , it subsequently emerged that PERCENT of the prisoners in the ward were receiving tuberculostatic medicines utilised in case of multi - resistance , which were being provided by their families . At the same time , the rest of the prisoners DATE who had lost contact with their families or had no financial resources – did indeed receive only symptomatic medication . Such an inequitable situation has the potential of inciting conflicts between inmates . Further , in the absence of a psychologist employed at the establishment , prisoners could not benefit from the psychological support necessary in their situation . ”

The following are the extracts from Treatment of Tuberculosis : ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL :

“ Treatment regimens [ for new cases ] have an initial ( intensive ) phase lasting DATE and a continuation phase usually lasting DATE . During the initial phase , consisting usually of CARDINAL drugs , there is rapid killing of tubercle bacilli . Infectious patients become non - infectious within DATE . Symptoms improve . The vast majority of patients with sputum smear - positive ORG become smear - negative within DATE . In the continuation phase fewer drugs are necessary but for a longer time . The sterilizing effect of the drugs eliminates remaining bacilli and prevents subsequent relapse . ...

Directly observed treatment is CARDINAL element of the ORG strategy , i.e. the ORG recommended policy package for ORG control . Direct observation of treatment means that a supervisor watches the patient swallowing the tablets . This ensures that a GPE patient takes the right drugs , in the right doses , at the right intervals . ”

The relevant extracts from ORG Note , ORG , Volume II : Background Papers ( Report No . DATE ) provide :

“ Communicable diseases , particularly GPE , continue to be a health threat in the country . While non - communicable diseases , accidents , injuries and poisonings represent most of the disease burden in GPE , communicable diseases – which were decreasing in DATE re - emerged in DATE , including tuberculosis ( TB ) , sexually transmitted illnesses ( STIs ) , malaria , diphtheria and new diseases such as HIV / AIDS . This trend is consistent with experience of [ other former GPE ] countries since DATE . According to official statistics , deaths from infectious diseases in DATE accounted for PERCENT of total deaths , with men CARDINAL times more affected than women .

... official statistics indicate that there has been a reduction in mortality due to communicable diseases since the late-CARDINALs . The reduction has brought this type of mortality to a level slightly below that of DATE , but still CARDINAL times higher than that of NORP countries . This reported reduction may be explained by the diphtheria outbreak that occurred in DATE , when deaths from infectious diseases peaked . However , when CARDINAL examines major diseases such as ORG , gonorrhea , syphilis and malaria , rates of infection have been steady and/or have actually increased . ...

The incidence of GPE has almost doubled since DATE and is now CARDINAL times higher than the EU-CARDINAL average . While not as high as that of GPE and GPE , the incidence of GPE continues to grow in GPE ...

For example , according to the WHO Global TB Control Report , there were CARDINAL prevalent cases per CARDINAL population in DATE , with a case fatality rate of PERCENT ... In addition , multi - drug resistant tuberculosis ( MDR - TB ) has been identified as a substantial problem in the prison population ... ”

The following are findings contained in the pilot study of tuberculosis treatment in NORP prisons – PERSON et al . , Multidrug - Resistant Tuberculosis in ORG , GPE , Emerging Infectious Diseases , PERSON . CARDINAL , No . CARDINAL , DATE :

“ According to ORG ( ICRC ) , the total number of inmates in the GPE prison system is CARDINAL . With CARDINAL TB [ i.e. tuberculosis ] cases per CARDINAL , the incidence in NORP prisons is CARDINAL times higher than the country average , and the mortality rate may reach PERCENT . ...

Except for CARDINAL patients [ out of CARDINAL examined ] in whom the first symptoms of ORG had appeared DATE previously , the patients had recent onset of GPE disease ... Most prisoners were substantially undernourished ( as indicated by low body mass indices ) and in poor clinical condition , many with unilateral or bilateral pulmonary infiltrates and cavities . Most of the nonresponding patients ... had been treated inadequately before the ORG intervention . ...

Analyzing the TB patients in ORG in GPE was complicated by constraints and biases inherent in the prison environment . Clinical information on the prisoners was limited and mainly based on self - reported data . Conclusions based on analysis of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL GPE patients in that hospital are largely fragmentary and may not be truly representative . However , enrolling more patients into our pilot study was not considered , mainly because of frequent transfer of prisoners and high mortality rates . When the ORG program was implemented by the ICRC , many of the TB patients were either untreated or had received inadequate drug regimens for DATE . ”

Resolution CARDINAL ( CARDINAL of ORG of ORG on honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE , provides as follows :

“ ii . The ORG is aware that new trials of persons considered by the experts as political prisoners have started . It is concerned with reports of blatant violations of their procedural and other rights . It reiterates that these trials should respect all provisions for a fair trial as defined in LAW , including that they be accessible to journalists . It considers that these trials , which started DATE , should not be dragged out for a long period and must be concluded rapidly . ”

Political prisoners in GPE , Report of ORG Human Rights , Rapporteur PERSON ORG , DATE , ORG . DATE , provides :

“ CARDINAL . This concerns the cases of PERSON ( test case ORG ) , Alikram Gumbatov [ sic ] ( test case noCARDINAL ) , and PERSON ( test case noCARDINAL ) ...

In its LAW ( DATE ) , paragraph CARDINAL , the ORG had asked GPE “ to give renewed consideration to the political expediency of releasing them ” . Instead , new trials were begun of these CARDINAL recognised political prisoners , following a decision to this effect by ORG on DATE ; on DATE of writing this report , these trials had not been completed . They are being held in the high security prison in GPE .

Since I was appointed as a member ( Chairperson ) of ORG in charge of the implementation of Resolution DATE ) , I have been able to meet these CARDINAL symbolic prisoners on CARDINAL occasions ( except for LOC ) , as well as their lawyers . I already visited them when I was Rapporteur for accession DATE . I have been of the opinion for a long time , as is also the view of the experts , that they are undoubtedly political prisoners . ...

The trial of PERSON is also proceeding chaotically . The last sitting in his trial , scheduled for DATE , has been postponed on account of the main judge 's indisposition , and no new date has been announced . ...

We believe that these retrials , which in reality are appeals disguised as new trials , fall short , as far as the procedure is concerned , of the expectations expressed by the ORG in its last report on political prisoners in GPE . The judicial investigation should have been started again from the beginning , and the accusations made against the defendants should not be lifted purely and simply from the previous trials , since the former judgments are currently still in force and consequently the QUANTITY prisoners do not benefit from the presumption of innocence . Moreover , since these trials are being held in prison ( in GPE , far from GPE ) , it is not easy for people to attend . Finally , in some cases , witnesses called by the defence were refused by the court . ”

Report on ORG , issued by ORG in DATE , provides as follows :

“ The international mission took place from DATE in GPE . It was made up of PERSON and PERSON , attorneys at law with the PERSON and ORG . The goal of the mission was to monitor the trial of CARDINAL political prisoners , Messrs. PERSON , FAC [ sic ] and PERSON , who were being re - tried . ...

The mission was able to attend CARDINAL hearings , CARDINAL on DATE for ORG , the other on DATE for Gumbatov [ sic ] , after asking the President of ORG for authorization . ...

[ H]earings take place in a specially equipped prison cell that includes a few benches for the audience and legal staff , but can only hold CARDINAL people , the others having to wait outside . The [ defendant is ] locked up in a cage under strict supervision . ...

The location of the trials is very difficult to access . The PERSON prison is TIME away from GPE , and there is no public transport to get there . Each time , the judges , lawyers , families of prisoners and audience have to travel TIME to get to the prison and use their own means of transport , which is very costly .

Conditions of access are those of a prison . Only people who have been authorized by the President of ORG can attend hearings . CARDINAL controls are carried out before entering the courtroom . Cell phones are confiscated at the entrance , and handed back at the end of session .

According to the Minister of ORG , [ hearing is ] public , since any person who wishes to attend can [ do so ] and even “ international organisations ” have been allowed in . In practice , the press and families often have to protest outside the courtroom because they are not allowed in .

Journalists are carefully selected . During the first hearing the mission attended , journalist called out to the President to complain that colleagues , in particular journalists from television , had not been let in . ”


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the town of ORG , GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in the same town .

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

The first applicant is a Second World War veteran . Since DATE he has been on a housing waiting list of ORG as he required an improvement of his housing conditions . The first applicant requested to be provided with an apartment for his family of CARDINAL ( the first applicant , his wife and his son , who is the second applicant ) . The first applicant ’s position on the main waiting list was no . DATE and no . CARDINAL on the special waiting list for Second World War veterans .

In DATE the first applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG against ORG and ORG asking to be provided with an apartment in accordance with LAW GPE . On DATE the court allowed the first applicant ’s claim and ordered the local authorities to provide him with an apartment .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( the ARC ) quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

In DATE the applicants lodged an amended claim .

On DATE the ORG rejected the ORG claim . The court found that in DATE the first applicant ’s position on the main waiting list was no . DATE and no . CARDINAL on the special waiting list for Second World War veterans . According to LAW , citizens who are registered as needing improved living conditions are provided with housing in order of precedence . The applicant could thus not be provided with an apartment out of turn and before those persons who were above him on the list . Moreover , the local authorities did not have financing for housing construction from ORG .

On DATE ORG of the ARC upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law .

Relevant provisions of LAW in force at the material time read as follows :

“ ORG who need improvement of housing conditions shall have right to be provided with housing for use in buildings of ORG or municipal residential stock according to procedures envisaged [ by law ] ... ”

“ ORG who are registered as needing improved living conditions are provided with housing in order of precedence .

The order of precedence for being provided with housing is set out in ... this LAW and other legal acts ...

From those citizens registered as needing improved housing , lists of those who have a priority right for housing are formed .

The order of precedence depends on the date of registration ( on the list of those , who have a priority right for housing ) .

“ Special priority for housing is given to :

- Second World War veterans [ ... ] within DATE from the date of their registration on the list for priority housing ... Second World War disabled persons [ ... ] shall receive housing prior to all other persons eligible for priority housing ”

“ Executive bodies of [ ... ] town councils have :

b ) delegated powers :

CARDINAL ) to provide , in accordance with the law , housing which is free or accessible in price , to citizens who are in need of social protection ... ”


No violation of P1-1 for some applicants;Violation of P1-1 for the others;No violation of Art. 6 (one applicant);Not necessary to examine Arts.13 and 14;Just satisfaction partially reserved;Costs and expenses partial award

Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) was born in DATE . He passed away on DATE . His sons , the second and the third applicants , stated that they maintained the application . Mr PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) was born in DATE . Mr PERSON ( “ the third applicant ” ) was born in DATE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants bought jointly from the GPE municipality a DATE - room apartment which had been nationalised in DATE . They made a PERCENT down - payment and reimbursed the remainder within DATE . During the relevant period the prices of apartments in big cities were fixed by legislation in amounts equal to DATE worth of an average salary .

In DATE the apartment was divided into CARDINAL apartments which became the ownership of the second and the third applicants respectively . In DATE the second applicant transferred his title to his CARDINAL sons , PERSON and PERSON PERSON .

In DATE the heirs of the pre - nationalisation owner of the whole apartment brought an action against the applicants under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below explaining the relevant law and practice ) . In the proceedings that followed , the courts collected documentary evidence and also heard several witnesses .

On DATE the ORG declared the DATE contract null and void as contrary to the law and restored the plaintiffs ' ownership rights .

ORG found that the DATE contract had not been signed by the relevant official – the mayor of the relevant district ( председател на ИК на общински GPE ) . In the applicants ' case the decisions approving the contract had been issued by the deputy mayor of the region of GPE ( председател на ИК на Окръжен/Градски НС ) , the superior of the competent mayor of the relevant district . However , a superior administrative body could not validly usurp the powers vested in their subordinates in matters that were not subject to appeal . Also , the regional mayor 's power to approve sales of apartments had only been introduced by an amendment that had entered into force in DATE , DATE after the relevant dates .

On a final point , ORG dismissed as unproven the allegation that the first applicant , who had been registered as an “ anti - fascist and anti - capitalist veteran ” – a registration which at the relevant time carried a number of privileges guaranteed by law – had abused his position to obtain the apartment at issue .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' ensuing appeal .

Upon the applicants ' petition for review ( cassation ) , on DATE ORG upheld the lower courts ' judgments while adding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of abuse : information that the first applicant might have been given priority , that he had made statements against persons who had applied to buy the same apartment and that when applying to purchase the apartment in DATE he had stated that he should be “ given his due ” as a veteran .

On DATE the restored owners brought an action for rei vindicatio . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants and their sons vacated the CARDINAL apartments and the pre - nationalisation owners took possession thereof .

NORP Since DATE the sons of the second applicant have been renting an apartment at the DATE rate of CARDINAL ( “ EUR ” ) . The applicants ' families unsuccessfully requested the GPE municipality to provide them with municipal apartments at fixed rental rates .

On an unspecified date the applicants and their sons requested compensation by bonds under LAW ( for an explanation about that compensation scheme and the fluctuations in bond prices , see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) . The market value of the CARDINAL apartments was assessed in DATE by a certified expert at MONEY ( “ BGN ” ) , the equivalent of approximately ORG CARDINAL . The applicants received compensation bonds of that amount .

Some of the applicants or their sons sold their bonds in DATE , when such bonds were traded at PERCENT of their face value . CARDINAL of the applicants sold his bonds at a moment when the market reached a peak , bonds trading at PERCENT of face value . In total , the applicants and their sons obtained the equivalent of approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as compensation .

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Before the ORG she was represented by PERSON , a legal adviser practising in GPE .

In DATE the applicant 's husband was granted the tenancy of a threeroom , CARDINAL-square - metres ' state - owned apartment . The applicant 's family moved in . The applicant had CARDINAL daughters .

NORP In DATE the applicant , who had divorced and had obtained the tenancy of the apartment , purchased it and reimbursed the price within DATE .

In DATE the heirs of the pre - nationalisation owners of the apartment , which had been nationalised in DATE without compensation , brought an action against the applicant under LAW .

It appears that at that time the applicant no longer lived in GPE . She had moved to GPE on an unspecified date .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the DATE purchase null and void . The court noted that the tenancy of the apartment had been obtained in DATE in breach of the law as , according to the applicable rules , a CARDINAL - member family – as the applicant 's – had only been entitled to a CARDINAL - room apartment . Furthermore , upon her divorce the applicant had been granted the tenancy of the apartment in breach of the law as it had largely exceeded her and her CARDINAL daughters ' needs . In any event , at that time the applicant should have been treated as a “ one - member ” family , her daughters having moved to GPE . Moreover , at the moment of the DATE transaction the applicant had not yet been a resident of GPE ( which was a pre - condition to buy an apartment there ) and , since her daughters had attained majority , they could not be counted as members of the family to justify a right to buy a CARDINAL - room apartment . Finally , the DATE salepurchase contract had not been signed by the mayor personally .

The applicant 's ensuing appeal was dismissed in DATE by ORG . On DATE the applicant 's petition for review ( cassation ) was dismissed by ORG . The courts upheld the conclusions of ORG and stated that each of the breaches of the law found by that court had been sufficient to warrant a finding that the applicant 's title was void .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the mayor requesting market - value compensation in accordance with the DATE amendment of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . She received a reply by the regional governor explaining that such compensation would only be payable after the adoption by ORG on the implementation of the DATE amendment .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to vacate the apartment and to pay to the restored owners damages for having continued to use the apartment since the judgments declaring her title void . The court rejected the applicant 's argument that she should not be required to leave until receipt of the market - value compensation provided for by the DATE amendment . The court found that her right to compensation from the ORG could not be invoked against the restored owners who were entitled to enter into possession of their property .

On an unspecified date the restored owners took possession of the apartment .

Following several unsuccessful applications of DATE and CARDINAL , on DATE the applicant was granted the tenancy of a CARDINAL - room municipal apartment in GPE . At that time she lived in GPE with her daughter and grand - daughter , still a minor . The applicant 's daughter was ill and the applicant helped looking after her grand - daughter .

On DATE the applicant filed a request with the regional governor for compensation through bonds . On DATE the regional governor recognised the applicant 's right to compensation bonds and on DATE appointed an expert to assess the market value of the apartment . On DATE the governor approved the expert 's report and ordered the issuance of compensation bonds for face value BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of QUANTITY ) .

On DATE the applicant appealed , contesting the assessment . The appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG which , after having appointed another expert who arrived at the same figure as the expert appointed by the regional governor , concluded that the method of calculation used by the CARDINAL experts had been in conformity with the law . The applicant 's ensuing cassation appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied to receive the compensation bonds issued pursuant to the governor 's order of DATE . She received them on DATE .

The applicant sold her bonds in instalments . In DATE and DATE she sold in CARDINAL parts CARDINAL of her bonds , at an average rate of PERCENT of face value . In DATE she sold part of her remaining bonds for PERCENT of their face value . When the bond prices started to rise in DATE , she sold the remainder she had at PERCENT of face value . As a final result , the applicant obtained a total of ORG MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as compensation for her apartment .

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , both NORP nationals , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . Mr Cholakov passed away in DATE . His wife ( the second applicant ) and her daughter and son , PERSON heirs , stated that they wished to continue the proceedings before the ORG . The applicants were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE the applicants became tenants in a state - owned apartment of CARDINAL rooms covering QUANTITY , in the centre of GPE . In DATE they purchased the apartment .

In DATE PERSON , the heir of the pre - nationalisation owners of the apartment , brought an action against the applicants under LAW CARDINAL of LAW . By judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the claim finding that that the DATE transaction had been in conformity with the relevant law and that the allegations of abuse of official position had not been proven . On DATE these findings were upheld on appeal by ORG .

Mr PERSON filed a petition for review ( cassation ) . On DATE ORG quashed the lower courts ' judgments and declared the applicants ' title to their apartment null and void . The court found that in DATE the applicants had obtained the tenancy of the apartment in breach of the law as it had not been shown that they had been registered as persons in need of housing . Furthermore , the apartment had exceeded in size the applicants ' housing needs as defined in the applicable law in force at the time . Moreover , assessing all circumstantial evidence , such as that the first applicant had been at the relevant time head of the finance department of the region of GPE , that the tenancy had been granted pursuant to a letter emanating from the regional administration and that the apartment at issue had been located nearby the applicants ' previous residence , the court concluded that the only possible explanation was that the apartment had been obtained through abuse of power and contra bonas mores .

On DATE the applicants were ordered by ORG to vacate the apartment . They sought unsuccessfully a postponement , invoking their age and poor health and the lack of compensation , and appealed . It appears that eventually , not DATE , the applicants vacated the apartment .

On several occasions in DATE and DATE the applicants asked the municipal authorities to provide them with a state - owned apartment for rent . They were put on the waiting list . In DATE they obtained the tenancy of a QUANTITY ' CARDINAL - room apartment in the suburbs of GPE .

NORP In the meantime , in DATE the applicants had applied for compensation bonds . In DATE or DATE the market value of the apartment was assessed by an expert at BGN MONEY ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and on DATE the applicants obtained compensation bonds for that amount .

In DATE the applicants applied to purchase the CARDINAL - room municipal apartment they had been renting since DATE . The municipality agreed . On DATE the applicants purchased the apartment for BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicants paid in cash as their request to pay in compensation bonds had been refused .

The applicants sold their bonds on DATE at PERCENT of face value , at a moment when the market had reached a peak , and thus obtained BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of QUANTITY ) .

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr M. Ekimdjiev , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE the applicant 's grandparents ' plot of land and small house in the centre of PERSON were expropriated for the construction of an administrative building . The expropriation was undertaken outside the scope of the nationalisation laws of that period ( it was not punitive or redistributive in nature ) but concerned building plans in the town . On an unspecified date the house was demolished and an office building was erected on its place .

The applicant 's grandparents received in compensation ownership of another plot of land and small house in the centre of PERSON . The plot covered QUANTITY and the house QUANTITY . That property had been nationalised in DATE .

In DATE the heirs of the pre - nationalisation owners brought an action against the applicant relying on section CARDINAL of LAW and also on the general rei vindicatio provision of the relevant property law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim as there had been no breaches of the law in DATE . On appeal , on DATE ORG judgment was quashed by ORG and the case remitted for renewed examination .

By judgment of DATE ORG declared null and void the DATE expropriation and compensation order , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW . The court found that at the relevant time an expropriation could only be effected by decision of ORG whereas the property of the applicant 's grandparents had been expropriated DATE and they had been given another property in compensation – by decision of the regional authority . As a result , neither the applicant 's grandparents nor the applicant , their heir , had ever become owners of the property provided in compensation . ORG also granted the rei vindicatio claim and ordered the applicant to vacate the property .

DATE . On appeal , on DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment adding that the fact that the applicant 's grandparents had not been responsible for any omission was irrelevant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's ensuing petition for review ( cassation ) . It noted that section CARDINAL of LAW did not apply – it only concerned property obtained through transactions whereas the applicant 's title had been based on an administrative decision . Nevertheless , the lower courts ' findings that the DATE order was null and void had been correct . In these circumstances , the applicant 's grandparents had never become owners of the plot of land and the building they had received as compensation in DATE . That estate had thus remained ORG property until DATE ( acquisition through adverse possession against the ORG was not possible ) and in DATE the pre - nationalisation owners had acquired it back ex lege , under the general rule of LAW , its section CARDINAL , providing for the return of certain categories of ORG properties to their former owners .

The court therefore modified the characterisation of the claim in law and upheld the lower courts ' judgments insofar as they granted the rei vindicatio claim and ordered the applicant to vacate the property at issue . However , insofar as they declared null and void the DATE order also in its expropriation part , the lower courts had acted beyond their jurisdiction as circumscribed by the pre - nationalisation owners ' claim . That part of the judgments had to be quashed .

The applicant did not apply for bonds since compensation by bonds was only applicable for persons having lost cases under section CARDINAL of LAW , whereas in her case ORG had found that provision inapplicable .

The applicants , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . Before the ORG they were represented by PERSON , a legal adviser practising in GPE .

The property at issue in the present case , a CARDINAL - room apartment in GPE of QUANTITY , was nationalised in DATE without compensation . DATE the local municipal housing fund rented the apartment to several different tenants . In DATE a PERSON , who had been living in the apartment since DATE , purchased it from the local municipality . In DATE , PERSON , having obtained the necessary authorisation , sold the apartment to the applicants ' family .

In DATE the pre - nationalisation owners brought an action under section CARDINAL of LAW against the applicants and PERSON They also sought a rei vindicatio order .

NORP In DATE the competent ORG dismissed the claim . On appeal its judgment was quashed on DATE by ORG which proceeded with an examination on the merits . .

By judgment of DATE ORG granted the claim . It noted that no trace of a tenancy agreement of DATE between the municipality and PERSON had been found in the archives . It found that , therefore , PERSON had not been a tenant in the apartment at issue and that she had not been entitled to buy it . Furthermore , the DATE sale - purchase contract between PERSON and the municipality had not been signed by the mayor personally – a comma was visible before the signature , which meant that someone had signed in the mayor 's stead . It followed that PERSON title had been void and that the applicants – who had purchased the apartment from her in DATE – had not become owners either . The applicants were ordered to vacate the apartment .

On DATE ORG judgment was upheld by ORG . The applicants ' objection that they had been in good faith and had acquired the apartment through adverse possession was dismissed on the basis of the reasoning that the law excluded acquisitive prescription in respect of State property .

The applicants vacated the apartment in DATE . In DATE , following an assessment of the market value of the apartment by a certified expert , the applicants obtained compensation bonds in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

NORP In DATE and DATE the applicants requested the municipal and regional authorities in GPE to sell them an apartment against compensation bonds . The regional governor refused by letter of DATE . The municipality of GPE , by letter of DATE , informed the applicants that they could only buy a municipal apartment if they were tenants in such an apartment . Furthermore , in accordance with the relevant municipal regulations , not PERCENT of the apartment 's price could be paid in compensation bonds . The remainder had to be paid in cash .

The applicants sold their bonds in instalments . CARDINAL part was sold in DATE and DATE ( at PERCENT of face value ) and the remainder in DATE , when the market rates surged ( at PERCENT of face value ) . The net amount the applicants obtained , after deduction of the brokers ' fees , was ORG CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , PERCENT of the value of the apartment as assessed in DATE .

The applicants , PERSON and her husband PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

Since DATE the first applicant 's mother and later the applicants were tenants in a state - owned CARDINAL - room CARDINAL-square - metres ' apartment in GPE . In DATE the applicants and the first applicant 's mother purchased the apartment . After the first applicant 's mother 's death , the applicants became the joint owners of the apartment .

In DATE the pre - nationalisation owner from whom the apartment had been expropriated without compensation in DATE brought an action against the applicants under section CARDINAL of LAW . The proceedings were later continued by the heirs of the pre - nationalisation owner .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim , noting that at the relevant time the applicants ' family had consisted of CARDINAL persons which entitled them to a CARDINAL - room apartment , that the first applicant , who was a researcher in philosophy , had been entitled to an additional room for her study , and that the apartment consisted in fact of CARDINAL rooms , the fifth room being a connecting hall . The court further noted that the first applicant 's mother had been registered as an “ anti - fascist and anti - capitalist veteran ” – a registration that had carried privileges provided by law DATE and that this fact had been mentioned in the papers relating to the DATE purchase . However , at the relevant time the right of a registered veteran to purchase a dwelling with priority had been provided for by law . Therefore , it could not be considered that there had been abuse of office or of a position in ORG .

Following a decision terminating the proceedings and another decision ordering their continuation , the plaintiffs ' ensuing appeal was eventually decided by ORG by judgment of DATE which upheld ORG judgment .

Upon the plaintiff 's cassation appeal , on DATE ORG quashed the lower courts ' judgments and granted the claim , declaring the applicants ' title null and void . ORG agreed with the lower courts that there had not been abuse . However , the conclusions as regards the fifth room of the apartment had been wrong . In reality , the apartment had exceeded by CARDINAL room the family 's needs , as determined by the relevant regulations .

DATE . On DATE the restored owners invited the applicants to vacate the apartment and requested DATE payments of MONEY . The applicants refused to leave but were eventually evicted in DATE pursuant to an eviction court order .

DATE the restored owners sued the applicants and obtained judgments ordering them to pay damages for their failure to vacate the property . Thus , as of DATE the applicants owed to the restored owners MONEY ( the equivalent of MONEY ) which they refused to pay . The applicants also owed at least ORG CARDINAL in costs .

The applicants never applied for compensation bonds considering that useless . On DATE they requested the mayor to provide them a municipal apartment for rent . They were placed on the waiting list but never received an offer .

On an unspecified date the applicants purchased a small apartment for an unspecified sum of money and moved there . Shortly thereafter , the restored owners applied for and obtained an attachment of the applicants ' new apartment to secure the payment of their claims . On DATE the enforcement judge undertook steps to put the applicants ' new apartment on sale with a view to satisfying the restored owners ' claims . In addition , DATE deductions are applied to the applicants ' pensions to cover their debt .

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , both NORP nationals and residents of GPE , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . PERSON passed away in DATE . Her heirs , the first applicant and the applicants ' CARDINAL daughters , born in DATE and DATE , stated that they wished to continue the proceedings . The applicants are represented before the ORG by PERSON , a legal adviser practising in GPE .

In DATE the applicants obtained a tenancy order for a ORG - owned tworoom QUANTITY ' apartment in GPE . The applicants , their CARDINAL minor daughters and the elderly mother of CARDINAL of the applicants lived in the apartment .

On DATE the applicants filed with the GPE municipal authorities a written request to buy the apartment under the relevant regulations . As required , they enclosed a declaration of means and family status .

The GPE municipality instituted an administrative procedure . On DATE the relevant expert committee assessed the value of the apartment .

DATE . On DATE the GPE municipal council submitted the file for approval by ORG , as required by the regulations . By letter of DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG approved the sale . In accordance with the relevant procedure , on DATE a sale - purchase contract was signed between the applicants and the GPE municipality . The applicants contracted a loan to pay the price of the apartment and reimbursed it in DATE instalments for DATE .

In DATE the heirs of the pre - nationalisation owners of the apartment from whom it had been expropriated without compensation in DATE brought an action against the applicants under section CARDINAL of LAW . The plaintiffs claimed that the applicants had obtained the apartment in breach of the law . By judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG dismissed the claim .

Upon the plaintiffs ' petition for review ( cassation ) , on DATE ORG quashed the lower courts ' judgments and , deciding on the merits , declared the applicants ' title null and void .

ORG noted that the regulations in force in DATE had required approval of the sale by the Minister of Building Planning , whereas in the applicants ' case the document containing that approval had been signed by a Deputy Minister . ORG did not accept the reasoning of the lower courts according to which the approval had been valid since the Deputy Minister who had signed it had been in charge of the sale of housing and had thus been empowered to sign in the Minister 's stead . That reasoning was incorrect because the housing regulations as in force at the time only mentioned the Minister as the official in whom the relevant power was vested .

On DATE the restored owners invited the applicants to leave the apartment and to pay rent for the time since the judgment of ORG . On DATE the applicants signed a rent contract with the restored owners and started paying DATE rent of BGN MONEY ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The contract was renewed in DATE .

On DATE the applicants requested the mayor of GPE to provide them with municipal housing . They reiterated their request in DATE . No response was received .

On DATE the applicants requested compensation in bonds . In DATE the regional governor approved the assessment of the apartment 's value , made by an expert , and determined that the applicants were entitled to compensation bonds in the amount of BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicants wrote to the mayor of GPE asking to buy a municipal apartment and to pay for it in bonds . On DATE the mayor replied that for the moment the municipality did not envisage selling apartments for bonds .

On DATE the applicants sold their compensation bonds at PERCENT of their face value . They thus obtained ORG CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the restored owners invited the applicants to leave . The applicants did not have the resources necessary to buy an apartment and refused . By judgment of DATE of ORG the applicants were ordered to vacate the property . Their objection that they should be entitled to withhold possession of the apartment until payment of the improvements they had made in the property was dismissed . The applicants appealed . By judgment of DATE ORG upheld the eviction order . The applicants rented an apartment and moved there on DATE .

The applicants , PERSON Tzileva and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE the first applicant became a tenant in a state - owned tworoom QUANTITY ' apartment in GPE . The applicants had CARDINAL children together , born in DATE and DATE .

In DATE the applicants applied to purchase the apartment in accordance with the relevant procedure for the sale of State housing to tenants . After having obtained the relevant authorisations , the applicants purchased the apartment from the local municipality and reimbursed the full price within DATE .

In DATE Mr N. , the pre - nationalisation owner of the apartment from whom it had been nationalised without compensation in DATE , brought an action against the applicants under section CARDINAL of LAW . In his claim Mr N. relied on all possible grounds under section CARDINAL . On DATE the ORG dismissed the claim .

Upon the plaintiff 's appeal , on DATE the ORG quashed the lower court 's judgment and granted the claim as the administrative decision authorising the DATE sale - purchase contract had been signed by the deputy mayor and not by the mayor personally . The court dismissed as unproven the plaintiff 's allegation that there had been abuse on the part of the applicants .

The applicants filed a cassation appeal . They argued that even if the administrative decision authorising the transaction had been signed by a deputy mayor , the sale - purchase contract itself had been signed by the mayor . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG judgment . It held , inter alia , that the relevant procedure had required an administrative authorisation as a separate step and that therefore the nullity of that authorisation could not be redressed by the fact that the sale - purchase contract that followed it had been executed properly .

DATE the applicants addressed numerous unsuccessful requests to the local municipality asking to be provided tenancy of a municipal dwelling .

In DATE the heirs of the pre - nationalisation owner brought a rei vindicatio action against the applicants . As the applicants had no place to live , they decided to oppose the claim and gain time . As of DATE the proceedings were still pending before ORG .

In DATE the applicants requested compensation by bonds . On an unspecified date an expert assessed the value of their apartment at ORG CARDINAL ( the equivalent of about EUR CARDINAL ) . Weighing their options , the applicants decided , however , not to seek bonds as compensation . They considered that , having regard to the rates at which bonds were traded at that time , PERCENT of face value , such compensation would offer no realistic perspective of finding a place to live . By refusing to accept such partial compensation , the applicants also wished to express their protest against the injustice visited on them .

The applicants , Mr PERSON and his daughter PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in FAC . Before the ORG they were represented by PERSON , a legal adviser practising in GPE .

In DATE the first applicant and his wife bought a CARDINAL - room CARDINALsquare - metres ' apartment from the local municipality .

In DATE the pre - nationalisation owner , from whom the property had been expropriated in DATE , brought an action against the applicants under section CARDINAL of LAW . By judgments of DATE of ORG , DATE of ORG and DATE of ORG , the courts granted the claim .

They found , in particular , that the DATE administrative decision for the sale of the apartment had been signed by the secretary to ORG whereas it should have been signed by the mayor . The courts noted that in DATE the municipal council had issued a decision delegating to its secretary matters related to the sale of municipal housing but considered that that delegation had been null and void since in accordance with the relevant law as in force at the time the vice - president of the municipal council replaced the president in his absence .

The courts also noted a second shortcoming . The law at the relevant time provided that the municipality 's decision to sell the apartment had to be approved by the mayor of the respective region . In the applicants ' case , a comma was visible in front of the signature placed on the document containing the approval . In GPE it was customary to “ sign with a comma ” when the person who signed was replacing . In these circumstances , since the applicants had failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that the signature on the relevant document was that of the mayor , the courts found that the approval must have been signed by another person and was therefore invalid .

The courts concluded that the applicants ' title was null and void and ordered them to vacate the apartment . They did so on DATE .

In DATE the applicants requested compensation by bonds . In DATE they received bonds for BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , in accordance with the valuation of the property by an expert appointed by the regional governor .

On DATE the applicants were granted the tenancy of a municipal apartment . They applied to purchase it by bonds .

In DATE the municipal council in ORG decided that as a matter of principle applications to purchase an apartment by persons who had lost cases under section CARDINAL of the Restitution Law should be granted . In accordance with the relevant law , however , the power to sell municipal property was vested with the mayor .

On DATE the mayor of ORG wrote to ORG inquiring whether the municipality would be able to make use of the bonds it would acquire if it were to sell municipal apartments to individuals in the applicants ' position . On DATE the ORG replied negatively . On DATE the mayor informed the applicants that the municipality was not under an obligation to sell an apartment to them .

On DATE the applicants brought an action against the mayor challenging his refusal to sell an apartment . ORG rejected the claim as inadmissible . On DATE ORG upheld the rejection of the claim . It noted that in accordance with the provisions of LAW , compensation bonds could be used for the purchase of municipal dwellings and persons who had lost cases under section CARDINAL could do so with priority . Nonetheless , those provisions did not give rise to rights for the applicants and duties for the municipality . The decision of the municipal council of DATE did not create such rights and duties either . Municipal property sales were regulated by LAW . The sale of an apartment being a civil transaction to which the parties are at an equal footing , the mayor 's refusal was nothing more than a refusal to enter into a transaction , not an administrative decision affecting rights . Therefore , the mayor 's refusal did not affect any right of the applicants . It followed that the refusal was not amenable to judicial review .

On DATE the mayor of ORG refused the applicants ' renewed request to sell them an apartment for bonds .

NORP In DATE the applicants brought an action against the ORG and the local municipality , seeking damages for the fact that they had been deprived of their apartment owing to an administrative omission imputable to municipal clerks .

By judgments of ORG of DATE and ORG of CARDINAL DATE the applicants ' claims were dismissed . The courts found that ORG only applied in respect of facts that occurred after its entry into force in DATE . The courts also stated that the alleged omissions had occurred in the context of a civil transaction , whereas ORG concerned ORG liability occasioned by acts in the exercise of ORG power .

On DATE , at a moment when the market for compensation bonds was reaching a peak , the applicants sold their bonds at PERCENT of their face value . They thus obtained ORG MONEY ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

After DATE the communist regime in GPE introduced a series of nationalisation laws of a punitive or redistributive nature . As regards housing , the policy was to limit private real estate ownership to CARDINAL dwelling per family and to take away from their owners apartments allegedly exceeding their needs . All city apartments “ in excess ” were nationalised . In some cases the owners received ORG bonds in compensation . Owing to regulations modifying the conditions of payment on these bonds , in practice compensation was never received by the owners .

The nationalised apartments were allocated to municipal housing funds which managed them and rented them out at fixed rates . Special legislation established a system of categorisation of those in need of housing and provided for detailed rules on the basis of which municipalities rented out and sold apartments . The rules , which changed many times during the relevant period , provided for , inter alia , precedence rights for various groups ( “ anti - fascist and anti - capitalist ” veterans , large families , etc ) , limitations on the number of rooms and on the size of the apartments candidates could rent or buy ( on the basis of factors such as number of children , profession , health problems , etc ) and special procedures for renting or buying apartments belonging to ORG enterprises . Most of these rules were also applicable where newly built ORG apartments were rented out or sold .

A large number of nationalised apartments were sold to tenants in DATE and DATE pursuant to a new housing policy whose purpose was the accumulation of financial resources for the construction of new dwellings .

NORP In practice , during the communist period and until DATE an individual in need of housing could only buy an apartment by applying to a competent State body . The procedure was administrative , followed by the signing of a contract prepared by the administration . Candidates had to fill out the relevant forms and submit the required documents . The relevant municipal authority would then issue a decision and present to the candidate for signature the sale - purchase contract .

Until DATE , the courts had no power to review administrative decisions . According to ORG , the courts had no jurisdiction to examine an action for a declaration that the sale of a ORG - owned apartment to an individual had been null and void . The decision which apartment to sell and to whom belonged to the administration . The courts had no power to examine whether or not there had been a breach of the relevant rules such as those concerning precedence ( реш. CARDINAL от CARDINAL по гр.д. CARDINAL ; GPE No . CARDINAL от CARDINAL по гр.д. ORG ) .

The law and practice changed after the adoption of LAW DATE . In DATE ORG held that the courts , without repealing an administrative decision – which they had no power to do – , could take note that it was null and void and draw the ensuing civil - law conclusions such as that an individual concerned was not the owner of a disputed property ( ORG , реш. No CARDINAL oт CARDINAL , гр.д. CARDINAL ) .

At all relevant times , NORP civil law distinguished between possessing property in bad faith and doing so in good faith . According to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , still in force , an individual is considered to have acted in good faith if , unaware of a procedural defect in his title , he entered into possession of a piece of property . A bona fide possessor may acquire ownership rights ( over private property ) after DATE of acquisitive prescription or , if evicted , claim the value of improvements made in the property ( реш. No . CARDINAL от CARDINAL по гр.д. ORG ; Interpretative Decree No . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG ; реш. No . CARDINAL от CARDINAL по гр.д. CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

After DATE of the communist regime in DATE , ORG enacted legislation aiming at restoring justice for those whose property had been nationalised without compensation , or for their heirs . A number of denationalisation laws covering different types of property ( industrial plants , shops , dwellings , agricultural land , etc . ) were adopted .

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON on ORG of Nationalised Real Property ( “ the LAW ” ) , which entered into force in DATE , provided that the former owners , or their heirs , of certain types of real property nationalised by virtue of several specific laws dating from the period DATE , became ex lege the owners of their nationalised property if it still existed , if it was still owned by the ORG and if no adequate compensation had been received at the time of the nationalisation .

Section CARDINAL provided for an exception to the requirement that the real property be still owned by the ORG . It provided that even if certain property had been acquired by third persons after the nationalisation , the former owners or their heirs could still recover it if the third persons in question had become owners in breach of the law , by virtue of their position in the NORP party or through abuse of power . According to the ORG this provision was necessary since during the communist period there had been many cases in which the privileged of DATE had obtained apartments unlawfully . The former pre - nationalisation owners had to bring an action before the courts against the post - nationalisation owners within a DATE time limit . If the courts established that the title of the post - nationalisation owners involved breaches of the law or was tainted by abuse they declared it null and void and restored the property to the pre - nationalisation owners .

In DATE former pre - nationalisation owners who had missed the initial DATE period under section CARDINAL of LAW for bringing an action against post - nationalisation owners were given a second chance through a legislative amendment renewing the DATE time - limit . On DATE the Constitutional Court struck down the amendment as it encroached on the principle of protection of property and legal certainty ( реш. CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL по PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Nevertheless , as the judgments of ORG have no retroactive effect , the courts , in accordance with their established practice , were bound to examine claims under section CARDINAL brought in the interval between the entry into force of the DATE law renewing the time - limit and the DATE ORG judgment quashing that law ( опр. CARDINAL , CARDINAL по гр.д. CARDINAL г. , ВКС-IV ) .

NORP In practice , in some cases the ground for annulment was a finding that there had been abuse of office or of a position in the NORP party . In other cases the relevant files retrieved from the archives did not contain proof of approval by an administrative authority , as required by regulations in force at the relevant time . Other grounds on which the courts granted section CARDINAL claims included breaches of regulations dating from DATE establishing a link between the number of family members and the number of rooms they were entitled to , breaches of requirements such as that the buyer should be a tenant or an employee of the ORG agency or enterprise using the apartment , etc .

NORP In a large number of cases under section CARDINAL , the omission identified by the courts as decisive was the fact that the sale contract , or another relevant document , such as , for example , a tenancy order or a relevant approval , had been signed by the deputy to , or the superior of , the official in whom the relevant power was vested ( i.e. deputy mayor instead of the mayor , deputy minister instead of the minister , regional governor instead of district governor ) . After an initial period of uncertain practice , the courts adopted the view that such defects had the automatic effect of rendering the transactions null and void ab initio . The outcome was the same even where the relevant minister or mayor had authorised a deputy to sign , since the housing regulations did not mention expressly a possibility to delegate ( реш. No . CARDINAL/ CARDINAL по гр.д. CARDINAL , ORG – IV ) . The argument that the individuals concerned bore no responsibility for such omissions by the administration and had never had any legal means to seek their rectification was considered as irrelevant ( GPE DATE , ORG , GPE ORG GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; реш. No . CARDINAL/ CARDINAL по гр.д. No . PERSON , PERSON ; реш. No . CARDINAL от CARDINAL по гр.д. No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON ) .

NORP In reaction to post - nationalisation owners ' argument that they had acquired the property through adverse possession , even if there had been a minor omission in the relevant transaction , the courts relied on CARDINAL of LAW , which provided that ORG property could not be acquired through adverse possession .

The application of section CARDINAL has been the object of heated public debate , including in the ORG . CARDINAL of the central issues has been the question whether or not it was justified to allow the nullification of DATE property titles for minor administrative omissions that had been the responsibility of the administration , not the individual concerned . In DATE and DATE the ORG adopted amendments to the LAW repealing section CARDINAL or limiting its scope to cases involving substantial breaches of the law committed in bad faith or abuse of power . All those amendments were declared anti - constitutional by ORG on the basis that they purported to modify already acquired civil rights to restitution ( реш. No . CARDINAL по PERSON No . DATE , PERSON ; реш. No . CARDINAL по PERSON No . CARDINAL , GPE бр. CARDINAL ; реш. No . CARDINAL по к.д. CARDINAL/CARDINAL , GPE бр. CARDINAL , попр. PERSON ) .

In some cases the courts allowed claims by pre - nationalisation owners against post - nationalisation owners who had purchased the property from an individual , not from the ORG ( see the case of PERSON and PERSON , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Also , in cases where section CARDINAL did not apply , the courts nevertheless granted restitution claims , without limitation in time , by reference to the general provisions of civil law concerning nullity of transactions combined with section CARDINAL of LAW ( реш. N : DATE , CARDINAL г. по гр. д. N : CARDINAL г. , ВКС-IV – see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above , concerning the case of ORG ; but see , by contrast , реш. N : CARDINAL , CARDINAL г. по гр. д. N : CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ВКС-IV ) .

In its judgment of DATE , refusing a motion to declare section CARDINAL unconstitutional , ORG dealt with the argument that the law affected disproportionately the rights of the post - nationalisation owners many of whom had not done anything unlawful . It stated :

“ The Constitutional Court shares the [ petitioners ' ] concern that there may be many cases where the breaches of the law ... resulted from [ acts of ] the administration ... That fact , however , does not concern the nullity of the transactions ... The LOC ] remain null and void regardless of which party had breached the law . The question of responsibility for damages in such cases is a separate issue . ORG considers that section CARDINAL of the [ Restitution Law ] does not exclude claims for damages against ORG bodies or ORG officials who have breached the law when effecting the transactions . The possible legislative elaboration of that responsibility in cases under LAW falls within the competence of ORG . ”

ORG has not adopted a law elaborating on possible civil liability of officials or ORG bodies responsible for a breach of the law that led to nullification of a property title . As confirmed by the courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above about the case of ORG and , also , реш. DATE от CARDINAL по гр.д. QUANTITY ORG ) , such claims by persons in the applicants ' position are not possible either under ORG DATE ( as it did not apply with regards to damage occasioned before its entry into force ) or under general civil law .

The initial text of LAW of DATE did not provide for any compensation for persons ordered to vacate their property under section CARDINAL . For DATE , the question whether such compensation should be paid by the ORG was the subject matter of heated debates . In DATE and DATE ORG adopted amendments to LAW concerning the issue of compensation ( GPE броеве CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Most of these amendments were thereafter declared unconstitutional by ORG on various grounds ( see the decisions cited in paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

An amendment introduced in DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL of the supplementary provisions to LAW , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , “ the DATE amendment ” ) was not struck down by ORG and remained in force until its repeal by ORG in DATE . It provided that persons who had been ordered to vacate their apartments under section CARDINAL were to be paid by the ORG full market value cash indemnity . Also , until this payment was effected , they were entitled to rent temporarily ORG - owned apartments , or to receive a rent allowance . The above obligations of the ORG were to be governed by regulations to be issued by ORG .

ORG did not adopt the regulations necessary to put in practice the DATE amendment to LAW . Former owners who lost their apartments in cases under LAW did not receive market - value cash indemnity or any rent allowance . In some cases , the evicted post - nationalisation owners were able to rent municipal apartments at fixed rates . In a large number of cases , however , the requests made were unsuccessful because of lack of availability or because the competent authorities interpreted the relevant law as allowing discretion and refused the requests .

NORP In DATE a new law , the Law on Compensation for Owners of Nationalised Real Property ( “ the Compensation Law ” ) – whose main purpose was providing compensation for property taken under several laws of punitive or redistributive nature and which could not be returned physically DATE introduced a provision ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) which stated that persons who had lost their dwellings pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Restitution Law should “ receive housing compensation bonds , if they [ had ] not received the indemnity provided for in [ the DATE amendment ] ” ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .

In DATE , the DATE amendment was repealed . The bill repealing the amendment was introduced in ORG with the explanation that the ORG did not have the resources necessary to pay in cash .

After DATE , the former owners whose title had been declared null and void could apply for bonds under section QUANTITY of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) within DATE or within DATE of the final judgment in their case .

NORP The requests are examined by the relevant ministry or regional governor . Experts assess the market value of the property . The face value of the bonds to be issued is equal to the full market value of the dwelling . The decisions are subject to appeal before ORG .

Compensation bonds are not exchangeable for cash . No interest accrues . They can only be used for participation in privatisation tenders and their value thus largely depends on the availability of privatisation offers .

A secondary market for compensation bonds developed in GPE . Until DATE , they were traded at CARDINAL of their face value . As bond prices remained low over a long time , many persons in the applicants ' situation sold their bonds during that period and obtained CARDINAL of their face value .

In DATE , there was a sudden surge in the price of compensation bonds at the secondary stock market in connection with the privatisation of several major enterprises . Within DATE , in DATE bond rates reached PERCENT and more of face value . In DATE housing bond prices fell again and later stabilised at PERCENT of their face value .

In accordance with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , as in force DATE , housing compensation bonds could also be used to purchase , “ with priority ” , ORG or municipal dwellings . However , municipalities had no interest in parting with their real property in exchange of compensation bonds and prefer to sell for cash . Some municipalities adopted rules according to which not CARDINAL or PERCENT of the price of a dwelling could be paid by compensation bonds . ORG , when examining an appeal against a refusal of a mayor to sell an apartment for bonds , held that persons who had lost cases under section CARDINAL did not have a right to buy an apartment , the matter being within the discretion of the municipality ( опр. ORG по адм. д. MONEY , ВАС-III , see paragraph CARDINAL above , concerning the case of PERSON v. GPE ) . In DATE , by virtue of an amendment to section CARDINAL of LAW , the sale of apartments for bonds was prohibited .

NORP In DATE the ORG amended again section CARDINAL of LAW , introducing new paragraphs CARDINAL . The amendment only concerns persons who had not yet sold the compensation bonds they had received . New paragraph CARDINAL provided that persons who had lost their property under section CARDINAL should have priority when applying to buy municipal apartments and should be entitled to pay in bonds , at face value . The new provision was not accompanied by an amendment to section CARDINAL of LAW , which prohibits the sale of apartments for bonds . Also , the new paragraph CARDINAL does not affect the established case - law according to which municipalities are under no duty to sell apartments ( see the preceding paragraph ) . New paragraph CARDINAL provided that if no apartment was offered by the relevant municipality within DATE , the person concerned was entitled to receive in cash the face value of his or her bonds from ORG . The realisation of this right is conditioned by the adoption by ORG of implementing regulations .

A person whose title has been declared null and void could in principle claim the price that he , she or their ancestors had paid when buying the apartment ( usually DATE ) . However , owing to the depreciation of the national currency and the established practice of the NORP courts refusing revalorisation , such claims can only lead to recovery of minimal amounts .

In accordance with interpretative decision No . DATE of ORG , persons who lost cases under section CARDINAL of LAW are not entitled to claim compensation for improvements they had made in the property . To reach that conclusion and thus establish an exception from the general rule , ORG referred to the fact that the aim of LAW had been to give back to their owners property confiscated without compensation . Justice required that they should not bear the burden to pay for improvements and maintenance expenses . Also , section LAW provided that persons who had obtained restitution of their nationalised property could not claim compensation for the fact that their property had been used by others after the nationalisation . It followed that the post - nationalisation owners whose titles had been nullified under section CARDINAL should not be entitled to compensation for maintenance expenses and improvements in the property .