CASE OF THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 11;Non-pecuniary damage - award

George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The background to the case is described in detail in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON and ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIX ) and ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE the second applicant and CARDINAL other members of ORG notified the Mayor of PERSON that the organisation intended to stage a rally TIME on DATE at the grave of PERSON near FAC , to commemorate DATE of his “ dastardly murder ” . The event would include laying flowers at the grave , making speeches about the life and the activity of PERSON , and a “ cultural programme ” .

On DATE the Mayor of PERSON , without giving reasons for his decision , advised the organisers that PERSON could hold a rally TIME on DATE , and that it could include laying flowers on the grave of PERSON and making speeches about him .

On TIME the organisers of the rally built a stage near the grave and started decorating it . According to them , at TIME a plainclothes police officer , accompanied by CARDINAL uniformed police officers , approached and told them to stop decorating the stage , as the Mayor ’s permission was valid TIME , and after that they were to leave the area . That statement led to tension , with some of the participants reacting forcefully . After that the rally was allowed to proceed . The Government disputed that assertion . According to them , the rally took place without incident and was attended by CARDINAL foreign guests , including representatives of the embassy of “ the former GPE ” and a number of NORP and NORP journalists . According to the applicants , no other organisations held events at PERSON grave TIME on DATE .

According to the applicants , in DATE before the rally the local radio and cable television stations reported that the rally had been banned and was not to be attended . The Government disputed that assertion .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention of staging a rally at TIME on DATE in front of the monument to “ the great NORP revolutionary ” PERSON in GPE , to commemorate the anniversary of his assassination by laying flowers . The rally would start in front of ORG in ORG and make its way to FAC , where the monument was located .

In a letter dated DATE and received by ORG the Mayor of ORG informed it that “ [ e]very citizen of GPE [ had ] the right to pay his respect to the memory of the national heroes and lay flowers at their monuments ” . However , in the way it had been planned , the rally was in fact a procession . To proclaim PERSON a “ NORP revolutionary ” was “ unconstitutional and provocative ” . The rally was likely to stir unrest and breaches of public order , as had happened in the past . Moreover , the holding of rallies presupposed registration , proof of which ORG had not presented . Finally , the municipality had planned an event on FAC for DATE , to mark the “ DATE ” , which made the holding of the rally impossible .

On DATE Ilinden sought judicial review of the Mayor ’s decision by ORG ( “ PERSON районен съд ” ) . It appears that the court instructed GPE to provide proof of registration , which it did not produce . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court declared the application for judicial review inadmissible . It noted that on DATE Ilinden had been refused registration as a non - profit association ( see ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . In view of this and of the fact that the application concerned a rally which was due to take place on DATE of the court ’s decision DATE it was obvious that the court ’s instructions could not be complied with . The application was therefore defective and could not be examined .

In the meantime , on DATE , the police , relying on section CARDINAL of the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered the head of ORG ’s Blagoevgrad chapter not to organise “ rallies by members of the organisation ... without permission by the Mayor of ORG and in breach of the [ DATE ] Meetings and Marches Act ” . The order further admonished him to “ coordinate the members of ORG to prevent demonstrations with foreign ... flags and other symbols , or the display of placards ... with GPE slogans , which [ was ] likely to incite unrest and breaches of public order ” . Another member of ORG was ordered not to commemorate the anniversary of the death of PERSON or “ use propaganda materials against GPE and LAW .

Nevertheless , on DATE members of Ilinden were able to lay flowers on the monument , but were not allowed to carry flags or placards . According to the applicants , the municipality did not hold any event on that day . According to the Government , the municipality held the traditional celebration which was open to all comers , including members of Ilinden .

On DATE the head of ORG ’s chapter in PERSON notified the Mayor that the organisation intended to stage a rally in the area of PERSON TIME , to mark the anniversary of the Ilinden uprising .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Mayor of GPE advised ORG that it did not have permission to hold the rally , as another organisation , ORG , had already applied for and been granted permission to hold an event at the same place and at the same time .

On DATE Ilinden sought judicial review of the Mayor ’s decision by ORG ( “ ORG районен съд ” ) . In a decision of DATE the court discontinued the proceedings . It held that under the DATE Meetings and Marches Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the holding of rallies was not subject to permission by the Mayor . On the other hand , in certain limited cases the Mayor could ban a rally . The Mayor ’s letter did not amount to a ban ; it could be regarded as a mere proposal to alter the time and place of the rally . There was therefore no valid administrative decision to be reviewed and the application for judicial review was pointless .

On DATE Ilinden held its rally in PERSON , apparently without disturbance by the authorities or by hostile counterdemonstrators . According to the Government , the authorities did everything to ensure the smooth unfolding of the event , including asking VMRO to reschedule its event and instructing the management of the site not to collect the usual fees for visiting it . According to the applicants , VMRO did not have any real intention to hold an event at that date and had coordinated their request with the police .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to hold a rally at TIME on DATE , “ to commemorate the NORP who fell victim to ORG terrorism and genocide in GPE ” , by laying wreaths and making a short speech in front of PERSON monument on FAC .

In a letter dated DATE and received by ORG the Mayor said that the phrase “ to commemorate the NORP who fell victim to ORG terrorism in GPE ” showed that the event Ilinden sought to organise would lead to breaches of public order and conflicts , as had happened in the past . Moreover , the holding of rallies presupposed registration , which had not been proved . Finally , the municipality had planned an event on FAC for DATE , to mark the beginning of DATE , which made the holding of the rally impossible .

Ilinden sought judicial review of the ban by ORG . In a decision of DATE , notified to GPE on DATE , the court instructed it to provide evidence of , inter alia , its registration .

At TIME on DATE members and supporters of ORG gathered in front of ORG in ORG , with a view to marching to FAC . They were surrounded by CARDINAL uniformed police officers . CARDINAL plainclothes officers approached the leaders of the rally and asked them to leave the placards and banners they were carrying . At TIME the participants in the rally marched to FAC , holding up CARDINAL flag and CARDINAL placards . They were surrounded by police , who apparently told them several times to put the flag and the placards down . QUANTITY from the monument a group of some forty police officers stopped the participants . A group of CARDINAL counter - demonstrators from VMRO were assembled at the base of the monument , waving flags and shouting insults at the participants in the rally . According to the applicants , the counterdemonstrators had not notified the Mayor of their intention to hold an event .

According to the applicants , the police told the participants in ORG ’s rally that , to be allowed to approach the monument , they had to put down their flags and placards , remove the ribbon from the wreath which they were carrying , and proceed CARDINAL by CARDINAL . As the participants refused to comply , they were not allowed to approach the monument .

According to the Government , ORG ’s failure to take into account the reasons given by the Mayor sparked an angry reaction on the part of citizens around the monument . The police protected the participants in ORG ’s rally from the angry bystanders and allowed them to approach the monument .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of Sandanski that it intended to organise a rally at the grave of PERSON near FAC , to take place TIME on DATE .

In a letter of DATE the Mayor said that an event had been planned for that date by a vocational training school , which had given notice of it on an DATE – DATE – and that ORG would therefore have to change the date , time and place of its rally .

On DATE PERSON objected , saying that they could not change the date and the time because according to NORP cultural tradition the dead had to be commemorated either on DATE of their death or on the closest DATE , and that , moreover , the grave had to be accessible to everyone . It also said that it could change the place of its rally from the front of a church located near the grave to the back of the church .

On DATE PERSON sought judicial review by ORG ( “ GPE районен съд ” ) , arguing that the Mayor ’s refusal to allow its rally because of another event was unfounded , as there was enough room near FAC for both to proceed . In a decision of DATE LOC found that the application for judicial review was inadmissible . Only bans on rallies were subject to judicial review , whereas the Mayor ’s letter did not amount to such a ban . Even assuming that it could be regarded as a ban , it had not been previously appealed before the municipal council , as required under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Meetings and Marches Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decision was served on the second applicant on DATE .

At TIME on DATE members and supporters of ORG assembled near GPE , building a stage with posters QUANTITY from the grave of PERSON . The applicants asserted that at TIME several police officers told them to remove the posters because at TIME a group of pupils would be coming to lay wreaths at the grave and on the posters they would see that PERSON was being proclaimed not as a NORP , but as a NORP revolutionary . After the pupils left the scene , the participants in the rally were allowed to put the posters back up . According to the Government , ORG reneged on a previous undertaking to move its rally QUANTITY to the west . Despite ORG numerous breaches of the Mayor ’s order , the police intervened only to allow the pupils of the vocational training school to commemorate PERSON . After that , the pupils were asked to leave the area , so as to avoid “ physical and other ” conflicts with ORG ’s members and supporters . The applicants said that no “ physical conflicts ” had been likely because the participants in the rally had withdrawn to QUANTITY from the grave and , moreover , knew and respected the teachers .

According to the applicants , during the rally several plainclothes police officers had threatened participants with arrest .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to hold a rally at TIME on DATE on FAC , where it would lay wreaths on the monument to PERSON and make a short speech . The rally would start in front of ORG in ORG and make its way to FAC , where the monument was located .

In a letter of DATE the Mayor of ORG informed ORG that “ [ e]very citizen of GPE [ had ] the right to pay his respects to the memory of the national heroes and lay flowers at their monuments ” . However , in the way it had been planned , the rally was in fact a procession . It was likely to cause breaches of public order and unrest , as had happened in the past . Moreover , the holding of rallies presupposed registration , proof of which ORG had not presented . Finally , the municipality had planned an event on FAC for the same date : a children DATE , which made the holding of the rally impossible .

On DATE Ilinden sought judicial review of the ban by ORG . On DATE it also appealed against the ban to ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chairman of ORG rejected the appeal , on the ground that the Mayor ’s decision was lawful .

On DATE ORG instructed GPE to rectify its application for judicial review , by specifying which decision it sought review of and exactly what form of relief it was requesting .

On DATE the police , relying on section CARDINAL of the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered the head of ORG ’s Blagoevgrad chapter not to organise a rally DATE . According to the applicants , on DATE the second applicant was arrested and taken to a police station in the town of LOC . On DATE the police drew up a report accusing him of having unlawfully organised a prohibited rally .

The rally took place on CARDINAL DATE . According to the applicants , the participants were not allowed to approach PERSON monument .

On DATE the head of ORG ’s chapter in PERSON notified the Mayor that the organisation intended to stage a rally in the area of PERSON at TIME on DATE , to mark the anniversary of the Ilinden uprising .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Mayor of GPE advised ORG that he could not allow the rally , as VMRO ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had already , on DATE , applied for and been granted permission to hold an event at the same place and at the same time .

On DATE PERSON sought judicial review of the Mayor ’s decision by ORG . It did not receive a reply .

On DATE Ilinden held its rally in PERSON , allegedly accompanied by a heavy police presence . The police filmed the rally with a video camera . According to the applicants , this was done to identify new participants and bring pressure on them to make them refrain from taking part in similar rallies in the future . According to the Government , the police officers present were no more than the usual number dispatched to such events . They did not allow any breaches of public order , save for the consumption of alcohol by members of ORG and their foreign guests . Another factor which had served to prevent breaches had been ORG ’s decision , at the authorities’ request , to reschedule their event for another time .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to hold a rally in front of the monument to PERSON on FAC at TIME on DATE . In reply , the Mayor banned the event because it coincided with a children ’s celebration marking the opening of DATE . ORG apparently did not receive a copy of the Mayor ’s decision .

On DATE the ORG police , relying on section QUANTITY of the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered the head of ORG ’s Blagoevgrad chapter and another of the organisation ’s leaders not to organise or take part in rallies involving the laying of wreaths and flowers in front of PERSON monument .

At TIME on DATE members and supporters of ORG started gathering in front of ORG in ORG with a view to marching to FAC . They were surrounded by approximately thirty uniformed and plainclothes police officers who blocked their way , seized the flags and placards they were carrying and destroyed a wreath . According to the Government , the actions of the police were monitored by a public prosecutor , who did not note any abuse of their powers . After that the participants in the rally decided not to go to FAC . On their way back a group of participants from PERSON laid flowers at a roadside monument near the village of Cherniche .

DATE a Member of ORG from ORG , PERSON B. PERSON , was reported by the press to have commented that the police had acted properly , doing the job done in DATE by ORG itself . The Mayor of ORG was reported by the press to have said that he “ would not allow the staging of antiBulgarian demonstrations by separatist associations ” .

On DATE CARDINAL of ORG ’s leaders filed a complaint about the actions of the police with ORG . In a decision of DATE that ORG refused to open a criminal investigation , reasoning that there was no indication that the police officers had acted unlawfully in preventing the rally DATE which had been banned by the Mayor DATE or in impounding the objects carried by the participants in it . PERSON ’s ensuing appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the second applicant and CARDINAL other members of ORG notified the Mayor of PERSON that the organisation intended to stage a rally TIME on DATE at the grave of PERSON near FAC , to commemorate DATE of his “ dastardly murder ” . The event would include laying flowers at the grave , a speech about the life and the activity of PERSON , and a “ cultural programme ” .

In a letter of DATE the Mayor of Sandanski informed GPE that it could lay flowers at the grave and organise a cultural programme TIME on DATE .

On DATE members and supporters of Ilinden gathered in front of PERSON ’s grave . At TIME they were interrupted by the police , who told them that the time allowed by the Mayor had expired and they should disperse . The participants complied and left the area . According to the Government , the interruption was necessary following the insistence of other organisations . According to the applicants , no other organisations held commemorative events near FAC on DATE ; the real reason for the interruption was the desire of the police to prevent visitors to the Monastery from seeing ORG ’s event .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to hold a rally at TIME on DATE on FAC , laying wreaths on the monument to PERSON and making a short speech , to mark the anniversary of the death of this “ NORP apostle revolutionary ” . The rally would start in front of ORG in ORG and then make its way to FAC , where the monument was located .

In a letter of the same date the Mayor of ORG informed ORG that “ [ e]very citizen of GPE [ had ] the right to pay his respects to the memory of the national heroes and lay flowers at their monuments ” . However , in the way it had been planned , the rally was in fact a procession . It was likely to cause breaches of public order and unrest , as had happened in the past . Moreover , the holding of rallies presupposed registration , proof of which ORG had not presented . Finally , the municipality had planned an event on FAC for the same date : a children DATE , which made the holding of the rally impossible .

On DATE the police prevented the participants in the rally from moving towards FAC and , relying on DATE Ministry of Internal Affairs Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered them in writing to refrain from participating in assemblies “ without permission from the Mayor of ORG ” and not to “ use placards , banners and other visual materials featuring texts with antiBulgarian content ” . According to the Government , the restrictions were necessary because of the simultaneous staging of a children ’s celebration .

On DATE the head of ORG ’s chapter in PERSON notified the Mayor that the organisation intended to hold a rally in the area of PERSON at TIME on DATE , to mark the anniversary of the Ilinden uprising .

In a letter of DATE the Mayor of GPE advised ORG that he authorised the rally .

The rally proceeded on DATE . It was attended by CARDINAL people . According to the Government , the only incident was an attempt by a member of ORG to damage the film camera of a local television station . According to the applicants , the same member of ORG was kicked CARDINAL times in the legs by a police officer while trying to prevent the officer from entering a restaurant where the participants in the rally were dining .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to hold a rally on FAC at TIME on DATE . It seems that on the same day the Mayor replied that the event could not proceed , as it might breach public order and infringe the rights of others .

On DATE a member of ORG ’s managing council once again notified the Mayor of ORG of the organisation ’s intention to hold the rally , to commemorate “ the victims of the NORP nation following the NORP governments’ acts of ORG terrorism and genocide ” . He added that for DATE on end the Mayor had prevented ORG from staging rallies , relying on bogus arguments .

In a letter of CARDINAL September CARDINAL the Mayor replied that the notification could not be examined , as no documents proving that ORG had been registered had been produced . It was therefore impossible to identify the “ members of the managing bodies of [ the ] event ” . Moreover , the municipality had organised a school holiday at the same place and on DATE , which made the holding of the rally impossible .

On DATE Ilinden sought judicial review of the ban by ORG . In a final decision of DATE the court rejected the application for judicial review . It held that the risk of breaches of public order had not been made out by the Mayor and that , in the light of ORG Rights’ judgments in a series of cases against GPE , the lack of registration was not a sufficient ground to ban a rally . However , the holding of a school holiday prevented the parallel holding of GPE ’s rally . In the court ’s view , it was inopportune to allow adults and children to gather at the same time and place , to concurrently stage a school event and a political one , as “ the children ’s fragile minds should not be subjected to the political interventions and influences which would inevitably occur if the CARDINAL events [ were ] allowed to proceed together . Children should on no account be burdened with the political passions and confrontations of adults and become the unwilling witnesses of acts which [ were ] perceived equivocally by NORP society ” .

On DATE , DATE , ORG notified the Mayor that , in view of the fact that the holding of the rally could not take place on DATE , it was willing to reschedule it for TIME on DATE . On DATE the Mayor replied that the notification could not be examined , as no documents proving that ORG had been registered had been produced . It was therefore impossible to identify the “ members of the managing bodies of [ the ] event ” .

According to the applicants , as a result ORG decided not to hold an event ; CARDINAL member laid flowers at the monument . According to the Government , the rally did take place without hindrance from the police .

On DATE Ilinden sought permission from the Mayor of Sandanski to rent a municipal hall on DATE , to hold a founding meeting needed for the organisation ’s registration as a political party . On DATE the Mayor replied that ORG ’s request could not be accommodated , as on DATE the hall was due to host an international wrestling tournament . He also added that the hall was very often used for cultural events and was due to undergo repairs .

On DATE Ilinden informed the Mayor that it had learned that the tournament would not take place and asked him to reconsider his decision , saying that there were no other suitable halls in the region . Failing that , it asked the Mayor to allow the founding meeting to be held in a square in front of the hall . On DATE the Mayor replied that according to the information available to him , the tournament would take place as planned . As regards the staging of the meeting in the square , Ilinden had to submit an official notification , specifying the organiser of the event , its aim and its exact time and place .

On DATE Ilinden reiterated its request to use the hall . It alternatively asked the Mayor to indicate another venue which could take CARDINAL people and allow its use . On DATE the Mayor confirmed his initial statement that the hall would be in use on the requested date . He also said that no other venue of such a size existed .

Ilinden complained about the refusal to let it use the hall to ORG and to the Blagoevgrad Regional Governor , but to no avail . It seems that as a result it did not hold the founding meeting as planned .

According to the applicants , on DATE the municipal hall was not hosting a sports event , but was empty .

DATE . According to the applicants , on DATE CARDINAL members of Ilinden were collecting declarations by persons who wished to become members of the political party at a stall in the centre of Sandanski . They were approached by CARDINAL men , CARDINAL of whom was the head of the ORG chapter of the political party Attack ( “ PERSON ) , who shouted insults at them . He threw the materials on the stall to the ground , hit CARDINAL of the members of ORG in the face , tore apart an ORG poster , and then called the police . The police arrived and arrested the attacker . Later he was warned not to engage in violent actions and released .

On DATE the CARDINAL members of ORG complained about the assault to the prosecuting authorities .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to open a criminal investigation , as the acts alleged in the complaint did not constitute publicly prosecutable offences . The bodily injuries suffered by the first ORG member were minor and therefore gave cause for a private prosecution , the destroyed property was not of great value , which made its destruction a trivial occurrence which should not be criminally prosecuted , and the proffering of insults also gave cause for a private prosecution only .

On appeal by the CARDINAL ORG members , on DATE ORG upheld that decision , fully endorsing its reasoning .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of Sandanski that it intended to stage a rally TIME on DATE at the grave of PERSON near FAC , to commemorate DATE of his “ dastardly murder ” . The event would include laying flowers at the grave , a speech about the life and the activity of PERSON , and a “ cultural programme ” . On DATE the Mayor of Sandanski informed GPE that he could not agree to the rally , as he had already allowed a sister organisation , ORG PIRIN , to stage an event at the grave of PERSON TIME on DATE .

On DATE Ilinden informed the Mayor that they had learned that ORG would in fact be holding their event in the town of ORG , in front of PERSON monument , TIME , and that only a small delegation would go to the grave near FAC , to lay flowers CARDINAL They therefore proposed to stage their rally at the grave after TIME On DATE the Mayor informed GPE that the rally could take place TIME , as the police did not have the means of protecting a longer event .

As a result , ORG decided to change the date of its rally to DATE and notified the Mayor accordingly . On DATE the Mayor replied that he could not accommodate its wish , as a vocational training school had already applied for , and been given , permission to stage an event at that time .

On DATE ORG filed an application for judicial review with ORG . It argued that the Mayor ’s refusals to allow the rally as planned were unlawful , as PERSON was willing to shift the timing of the event , but could not shrink it into the short timeframe allowed by the Mayor . It included a programme which needed time and it would not in any way disturb other events or visitors to PERSON grave . Ilinden therefore asked the court to set aside the Mayor ’s decisions and allow the rally to be staged TIME on DATE .

DATE . In a decision of DATE LOC declared the application inadmissible . It held that the Mayor had not banned the rally , but merely proposed a change in its timing , as was his duty under section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Meetings and Marches Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Only bans on rallies were reviewable by the courts , and only after such bans had been appealed against to the municipal council . Moreover , the Act did not give the courts jurisdiction to allow the holding of rallies .

On DATE Ilinden appealed to ORG , relying , inter alia , on the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . It is unclear what the outcome of the proceedings was .

On DATE the Regional Governor of ORG , acting of his own motion , annulled the Mayor ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE allowing the rally . He reasoned that it amounted to an administrative decision , creating legal rights for ORG , and that it was unlawful . Firstly , the organisation was not registered ; on the contrary , in DATE ORG had upheld ORG judgment turning down a request by ORG PIRIN to be registered as a political party ( see ORG PIRIN and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) . Since it was accordingly unlawful under NORP law , it had no standing to give notice of its intention to hold a rally . Secondly , the proposed rally would put public order at risk . ORG was a place visited by many tourists , especially at DATE . It was therefore inappropriate to allow the staging of a rally there . Moreover , rallies and meetings were being organised at those locations at the same time by the local authorities and non - governmental organisations . As clashes between supporters of ORG and others had taken place in the past , it was necessary to ban its rally . Finally , the activities of the organisation were contrary to NORP law , as they consisted in propaganda against the country ’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and aroused national and ethnic hatred .

According to the applicants , on DATE many bus companies hired to transport participants in the rally to ORG desisted , under pressure from the police . CARDINAL cars carrying materials for a stage to be erected at the site of the rally were stopped by the police and not allowed to continue . A bus transporting a group of singers was also diverted by the police . A number of other cars with participants were stopped and searched by the police while en route to GPE . The grave of PERSON was surrounded by CARDINAL uniformed police officers and a number of plainclothes ones , who did not allow the participants in the rally to approach it . No other organisations were present .

According to the Government , ORG was able to hold the rally , in the presence of many NORP journalists and representatives of ORG of the “ former GPE ” . The alleged difficulties with the transportation of the participants were overblown ; the police had done nothing more than to ensure the smooth commemoration by various organisations of the anniversary of PERSON death . It was not true that participants in the rally had been stopped and searched .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to stage a rally on FAC , in front of PERSON monument , at TIME on CARDINAL DATE . The event , which was to mark the anniversary of the assassination of the “ NORP revolutionary ” , would consist of the laying of a wreath and flowers on the monument and a short speech . It would TIME .

On DATE the Mayor replied that the notification could not be examined as ORG had not produced documents proving its official registration . It was thus impossible to identify the “ managing bodies of [ the ] event ” . Moreover , on CARDINAL DATE the municipality was organising children ’s games on FAC , so that the staging of ORG ’s event could not be allowed .

Ilinden filed an application for judicial review with ORG . It argued , inter alia , that there was no risk that breaches of public order or traffic disturbances would occur . The place of the rally and the limited number of participants had been specifically chosen to avoid such eventualities . FAC was very large and GPE was planning to use only a small part of it for its rally . The ban was not justified under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Meetings and Marches Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) or LAW and was in breach of ORG ’s right to express its opinion , enshrined , inter alia , in LAW .

In a final decision of DATE ORG dismissed the application . It held that , while the lack of registration did not amount to sufficient grounds to prohibit the rally , the risk that it could infringe the rights of others was enough to justify the ban . In the court ’s view , it was inopportune to allow adults and children to gather at the same time and place , to concurrently stage a school event and a political one , as “ the children should not be subjected to the political interventions and influences which would inevitably occur if the CARDINAL events [ were ] allowed to proceed together . Children should on no account be burdened with the political passions and confrontations of adults and become the unwilling witnesses of acts which [ were ] perceived equivocally by NORP society ” .

On DATE the police , relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered in writing a member of ORG ’s leadership not to organise or take part in a rally on DATE . According to the Government , in spite of that , on DATE , members of ORG laid flowers at the monument without being stopped by the police .

On DATE the head of ORG ’s chapter in PERSON notified the Mayor that the organisation intended to stage a rally in the area of PERSON at TIME on DATE , to mark the anniversary of the ORG uprising .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Mayor of GPE advised ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had already applied for and been granted permission to hold an event at the same place and at the same time .

On DATE ORG sought judicial review of the Mayor ’s decision by ORG . It argued that both events could proceed simultaneously . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court declared the application for judicial review inadmissible . It held that the Mayor ’s letter did not amount to a ban , but merely to information that another rally had been planned for the same time and place . Under the DATE Meetings and Marches Act , if a rally had not been banned within TIME of notice being given to the Mayor , it could proceed . Even if the Mayor did ban a rally , that decision first had to be appealed against to the municipal council and only then challenged by way of judicial review .

On DATE CARDINAL members and supporters of ORG approached PERSON , carrying placards and banners DATE according to the Government , “ in defiance of the orders of the municipality ” . According to the applicants , they were stopped by the police before reaching the site and were ordered to put the placards and banners down . They obeyed and were allowed access to the site without the materials . The participants in the rally laid wreaths and flowers . A plainclothes police officer removed the ribbons from the wreaths . Later the participants tried to erect a stage at their chosen place , but were stopped by the police and so erected it on the other side of a small river crossing the site . According to the Government , the police did not impose restrictions on the manner of commemorating the anniversary .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to stage a rally on FAC , in front of PERSON monument , at TIME on DATE . The event , which was to mark the anniversary of “ the genocide against the NORP ” , would consist of the laying of a wreath and flowers on the monument and a short speech . It would TIME .

On DATE the Mayor replied that the notification could not be examined as ORG had not produced documents proving its official registration . It was thus impossible to identify the “ managing bodies of [ the ] event ” . Moreover , the municipality had planned an event on FAC for DATE , a children DATE under the name “ Hello , school ” , to mark the beginning of DATE , which made the holding of the rally impossible .

On DATE ORG sought judicial review by the newly created ORG ( “ PERSON административен съд ” ) , reiterating the arguments raised in its previous applications . In a decision of DATE ORG found that under the DATE Meetings and Marches Act , which was lex specialis in relation to the general rules of administrative procedure , the court competent to examine an application for judicial review of a Mayor ’s decision to ban a rally was the district court . It therefore sent the file to ORG .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application . It held that , while the lack of registration did not amount to sufficient grounds to prohibit the rally , the fact that another event , likely to draw a number of people , many of whom were children , was due to take place on DATE in FAC was enough to justify the ban . In the court ’s view , it was inopportune to allow CARDINAL wholly different events to be staged at the same time and place .

According to the applicants , no school event took place at TIME on DATE on FAC . When a number of members and supporters of ORG gathered in front of ORG in ORG at TIME , they were stopped by the police and a number of them were arrested . They were taken to a police station , held for TIME and charged with committing administrative offences for having tried to take part in a banned rally .

On DATE the deputy Mayor of ORG imposed administrative punishments ( fines of MONEY ( MONEY ) each ) on the second applicant and on a number of members of GPE for having taken part in a banned rally , in breach of a publicorder regulation issued by ORG . All of them sought judicial review . In a series of judgments delivered on DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG annulled the fines . In some of the judgments it found that they were invalid , as under the applicable rules the deputy Mayor had no power to impose administrative punishments . In other judgments the court found that the deputy Mayor ’s decisions were defective because they did not specify which administrative offences had been committed . In others it held that although the Mayor ’s ban on the rally planned for DATE was legally binding , the actions of the members of GPE on that date had not amounted to the staging of a rally , as they had been too few and had not tried to wave banners and make speeches , but merely to lay flowers on PERSON monument . The court went on to say that every person , regardless of their political convictions , had the right to honour the memory of national heroes in peace .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of Sandanski that it intended to stage a rally TIME on DATE at the grave of PERSON near FAC , to commemorate DATE of his murder . The event would include laying flowers at the grave , a speech about the life and work of PERSON , and a “ literary and musical programme ” . On DATE the Mayor of Sandanski advised the organisation that its members could lay flowers on the grave of PERSON TIME , but not carry out the remainder of their programme , as an event had been planned for that date by a vocational training school .

On DATE Ilinden sought judicial review by ORG , arguing that there was enough room for both its and the school ’s events and that , as on many previous occasions , the limitations imposed by the Mayor hindered the exercise of its right of peaceful assembly . In a decision of DATE ORG found that the application for judicial review was inadmissible . It held that the Mayor had not banned the rally , but merely proposed a change in its timing , as was his duty under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Meetings and Marches Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Only bans on rallies were reviewable by the courts , and only after such bans had been appealed against to the municipal council . Moreover , the Act did not give the courts jurisdiction to allow the holding of rallies .

On DATE the police , relying on section CARDINAL of the DATE Ministry of Internal Affairs Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered the second applicant to abide by the limitations imposed by the Mayor of PERSON , to ensure public order during the event , not to urge a violent change of the constitutional order , and not to incite the commission of offences through public speeches .

The applicants submitted that on DATE the police stopped a number of cars travelling to PERSON to take part in the rally . The grave of PERSON was surrounded by about thirty officers . CARDINAL of them wanted to remove the ribbons from a wreath which members of ORG wished to lay on the grave , which sparked off a forceful verbal exchange .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to stage a rally on FAC , in front of PERSON monument , from TIME on DATE , to commemorate “ the genocide against the NORP perpetrated by NORP State terrorism ” . The rally would consist of the laying of a wreath and flowers in front of the monument , the making of a short speech , and the lighting of candles . The Mayor did not reply .

A number of members and supporters of ORG gathered in front of ORG in ORG at TIME on DATE . They carried CARDINAL posters saying “ FAC ” and “ DATE of the Genocide of the NORP of GPE ” . Several uniformed and plain - clothes police officers appeared on the scene TIME . CARDINAL officer told the participants that if they carried posters “ which are against GPE ” the posters would be taken away . After that the police seized the second poster . The participants in the rally then headed towards FAC . On the way there , CARDINAL men threatened CARDINAL of the participants in the rally , saying “ we will now fine you CARDINAL [ NORP ] levs each , I know your sons , we will fire them from work ... ” . In FAC the members of Ilinden stood in front of PERSON monument , laid a wreath and flowers , and lit candles . CARDINAL of them made a short speech . The police did not interfere with the event . However , they later arrested a member of GPE who was taking photographs , took his camera by force and exposed the film in it .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to stage a rally on FAC , in front of PERSON monument , at TIME on CARDINAL DATE , to mark the anniversary of his death .

In a letter delivered to ORG ’s chairman at TIME on DATE the Mayor informed the organisation that they could join the laying of flowers in front of the monument at TIME on DATE , together with representatives of other political and civic organisations . In view of the short time until the date of the planned event , Ilinden did not seek judicial review of the Mayor ’s decision .

The second applicant and CARDINAL other members of ORG , who tried to approach PERSON monument at TIME on DATE , were arrested and taken to a police station . There they were issued orders under LAW of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) not to take part in the rally prohibited by the Mayor . The police also seized a wreath with a ribbon saying “ To PERSON from LOC ” .

On DATE Ilinden notified the Mayor of ORG of its intention to stage a rally in FAC , in front of PERSON monument , TIME on DATE , to mark the “ day of the genocide against the NORP people ” . The Mayor did not reply .

On DATE members and supporters of Ilinden gathered in front of the monument , but were arrested and taken to a police station . There the police , relying on section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered the second applicant and CARDINAL other members of ORG ’s leadership not to take part in rallies not authorised by the Mayor of ORG . The police also seized from them several items : a ribbon bearing the inscription “ CARDINAL.IX . Day of the genocide against the NORP people ” ; a poster bearing the same inscription ; and a red flag bearing the inscription “ GPE ” and depicting the “ Star of Vergina ” . On DATE Ilinden requested the return of those items . The police acceded to the request on DATE .

The relevant provisions of the DATE LAW and of the DATE Meetings and Marches Act are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and ORG ( cited above ) , in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and PERSON ( cited above ) and in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. PERSON ( cited above ) . For the purposes of the present case , particular mention needs to be made of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , which at the material time provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where the time or the place of the meeting , or the itinerary of the march , would create a situation endangering public order or traffic safety , the President of ORG of ORG , or the mayor , respectively , shall propose their modification .

( CARDINAL ) NORP The President of ORG of ORG , or the mayor , shall be competent to prohibit the holding of a meeting , demonstration or march , where reliable information exists that :

it aims at the violent overturning of ORG public order or is directed against the territorial integrity of the country ;

it would endanger public order in the local community ;

it would breach the rights and freedoms of others .

( CARDINAL ) The prohibition shall be imposed by a written reasoned act not later than TIME following the notification .

( CARDINAL ) The organiser of the meeting , demonstration or march may appeal to ORG of ORG against the prohibition referred to in the preceding paragraph . ORG shall decide within twentyfour TIME .

( CARDINAL ) Where ORG of ORG has not decided within [ that ] timelimit , the march , demonstration or meeting may proceed .

( CARDINAL ) If the appeal is dismissed the dispute shall be referred to the relevant district court which shall decide within DATE . That court ’s decision shall be final . ”

ORG was adopted in DATE , when LAW was in force . Under that LAW , the executive local ORG authorities were the executive committees of the people ’s councils in each district . The mayors referred to in some of the provisions of ORG were representatives of the executive committee acting in villages and towns which were under the jurisdiction of the respective people ’s councils . LAW abolished the executive committees and established the post of mayor , elected by direct universal suffrage , as the “ organ of the executive power in the municipality ” ( Article CARDINAL ) .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE ORG , the police could , if necessary for the performance of their duties , issue orders to individuals or organisations . Those orders were binding unless they obviously imposed the commission of an offence ( section CARDINAL ) ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that such orders , when issued in writing , were subject to judicial review . The wording of section CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Ministry of Internal Affairs Act , which superseded the above provision on DATE and is currently in force , is almost identical .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW , regional governors ( a ) carry out governmental policy and coordinate the operations of the branches of central government in their respective regions ; ( b ) seek to achieve a balance between national and local interests and interact with the local authorities ; ( c ) are responsible for safeguarding ORG property in their respective regions ; ( d ) uphold legality in their regions and supervise the enforcement of administrative decisions ; ( e ) control the lawfulness of the decisions and the actions of local authorities ; ( f ) coordinate and control the operations of the territorial branches of ministries and other central authorities , as well as the enforcement of their decisions ; ( g ) organise civil defence ; ( h ) preside the regional security councils ; and ( i ) carry out the region ’s international contacts .

Under LAW CARDINAL Code of Administrative Procedure , all mayoral decisions may be challenged before regional governors . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , regional governors may annul unlawful mayoral decisions . Their decisions to do so are subject to judicial review ( section PERSON ) of the Act ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE ORG Caused to Citizens Act ( on DATE its name was changed to “ ORG and ORG ” – hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) provides that the State – and since DATE municipalities – are liable for damage suffered by private persons as a result of unlawful decisions , actions or omissions by civil servants committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties .

Article CARDINALb of the DATE LAW makes it an offence to prevent someone , through violence , threats or other unlawful means , from exercising their “ constitutional political rights ” . The offence is aggravated if committed by officials during or in connection with the performance of their duties ( Article CARDINALc of the Code ) .

ORG concluded the examination of application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( ORG and PERSON v. GPE ) and application no . CARDINAL ( PERSON and Others v. GPE ) on DATE , by adopting Resolution CM / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL , which reads :

“ ORG , ...

Recalling that the violations of the ORG found by ORG in these cases concern the infringement of the freedom of assembly of organisations which aim to achieve “ the recognition of the NORP minority in GPE ” due to prohibitions of their meetings DATE ( violation of LAW ) and the lack of effective remedies to complain against these prohibitions ( violation of LAW ) ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the ORG requires , over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments , the adoption by the respondent state , where appropriate , of

– individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

– general measures preventing similar violations ;

Having noted that CARDINAL other applications presently pending before the ORG concern allegations relating to bans or to the holding of certain meetings of the applicants initially scheduled DATE and DATE ;

Having considered , without prejudging the judgment the ORG could deliver in respect of these applications , that in view of the positive trend observed concerning the holding of the applicants’ meetings in particular since DATE and the absence of complaints from them as regards DATE , no further individual measure seemed required in these cases ;

Having also examined the general measures and in particular the awareness - raising measures taken by the NORP authorities to ensure that applicable domestic law is interpreted in conformity with the LAW and thus to prevent violations similar to that found by ORG ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Having satisfied itself that , within the time - limit set , the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments ( see details in Appendix ) ,

DECLARES , having examined the measures taken by the respondent state ( see Appendix ) , that it has exercised its functions under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases . ”


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

The applicant is in detention in the GPE penal institution .

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , the GPE prison authorities stopped letters and refused to hand them over to the applicant pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Strafvollzugsgesetz ) on the ground that they were written in NORP . Pursuant to the said provision , the head of the penal institution may halt letters to inmates that are written in a foreign language without a compelling reason ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the prison authorities alleging that the letters were written by his aunt and cousin who , despite having dual NORP and NORP nationality , were not capable of corresponding in NORP . He further submitted that both of the said relatives had been allowed to communicate with him in NORP on the occasion of previous visits to the GPE prison .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that it was undisputed that the applicant himself had full command of the NORP language and that the senders of the letters had both NORP and NORP nationality and had been residing in GPE for DATE . ORG found that since the applicant had failed to make any submissions as to why the authors of the letters were not capable of corresponding in NORP – for example personal data relating to their age , the length of their residence in GPE or their language skills - , there was nothing to establish that there existed a compelling reason for them to write in LANGUAGE . The mere fact that it would be easier for them to correspond in NORP could not be regarded as a compelling reason in this regard . ORG further observed that the applicant had extensive contacts with the outside world by means of visits and telephone calls . ORG clarified that the general decision whether the correspondence of the applicant had to be monitored had already been the subject of previous court decisions in DATE and was not the subject of the instant appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant and upheld the decision of ORG . ORG also found that the applicant had not substantiated that there were compelling reasons for the authors of the letters to write in LANGUAGE . It pointed out that should the applicant wish to have the entire correspondence with the said relatives excluded from monitoring , he would be free to lodge a pertinent request with the prison authorities .

On DATE ORG declined to consider a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Penal Code reads as follows :

“ § CARDINAL Stoppage of Letters

The leader of the institution may halt letters ,

if the purpose of the imprisonment or the security or order of the penal institution would be jeopardised ,

if the transmission of the letters in knowledge of their content constituted a criminal offence or summary offence ,

if they contain grossly incorrect or seriously distorting descriptions of prison conditions ,

if they contain gross insults ,

if they might jeopardise the integration of another prisoner ,

if they are drafted in a secret language , illegible , incomprehensible or drafted in a foreign language without a compelling reason .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG , and their Co - agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant spent his childhood , youth and part of his adult life in GPE , where he was educated within the field of business economics . He arrived in GPE on DATE at DATE CARDINAL . He married a NORP citizen on DATE and CARDINAL children were born out of marriage in DATE and DATE , respectively . The applicant , who speaks LANGUAGE , was employed in a computer firm . The spouses separated in DATE , and with the applicant ’s consent the mother was granted custody of the children . The applicant regularly had access to the children . On DATE the spouses divorced .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was arrested and charged pursuant to LAW with drug offences and an armed bank robbery .

The drug offences were allegedly committed during the period from DATE and related to CARDINAL ecstasy pills , QUANTITY of amphetamine and QUANTITY of cocaine .

As regards the bank robbery committed on DATE , the applicant was allegedly the instigator who , at the relevant time being DATE , had persuaded CARDINAL younger men , respectively CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , to participate . The CARDINAL youngest men entered the bank with a sawn - off sporting gun and the third acted as the chauffeur , while the applicant awaited them all at an appointed place . The proceeds in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) , equal to MONEY ( ORG ) , were split equally between them . The applicant pleaded guilty to the charges and was accordingly found guilty on DATE by ORG . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and expelled from GPE with a life - long ban on his return . As regards the expulsion order , ORG took into account the nature and seriousness of the crime committed , the applicant ’s age when he entered GPE , the fact that he was separated and had CARDINAL children in GPE , and that his parents and CARDINAL brothers lived in GPE . The court found that a decision to expel the applicant would not contravene the principle of proportionality .

On appeal , the judgment was upheld on DATE by the High ORG ) , which stated as follows :

“ Having regard to the character of the offences and the information concerning [ the applicant ’s ] role in the robbery and its planning [ ORG ] confirms the sentence as fixed by ORG .

Furthermore , for the reasons set out by ORG , [ ORG ] agrees with the expulsion order . Having made an overall assessment , which included [ the applicant ’s ] ties to his home country , [ the applicant ’s ] relationship with his children can not imply that the expulsion is contrary to the principle of proportionality . ”

The applicant ’s request to be granted leave to appeal against the judgment to ORG ( Højesteret ) was refused on DATE .

Having been released on parole , with DATE remaining of his sentence , the applicant left GPE on DATE .

The applicant submitted that while incarcerated in GPE he had telephone contact with his children DATE and that subsequent to his expulsion they have been in DATE telephone contact .

The relevant provisions of LAW applicable at the time read as follows :

Any person who , in contravention of the legislation on euphoriant drugs , supplies such drugs to a considerable number of persons , or in return for a large payment , or in any other particularly aggravating circumstances , shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not DATE . If the supply relates to a considerable quantity of a particularly dangerous or harmful drug , or if the supply of such drug has otherwise been of a particularly dangerous nature , the penalty may be increased to imprisonment for any term not exceeding DATE .

Similar punishment shall apply to any person who , in contravention of the legislation on euphoriant drugs , imports , exports , buys , distributes , receives , produces , manufactures or possesses such drugs with the intention to supply them as mentioned in subsection CARDINAL , above .

Any person who , for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for others an unlawful gain , by violence or threat of immediate application of such ,

( i ) takes or extorts from any other person a tangible object belonging to another person ; or ...

With regard to the level of punitive measures the Government submitted the following information , which was not disputed by the applicant :

In GPE DATE of imprisonment is a very severe sentence . According to ORG , DATE ( ORG , report no . CARDINAL , p.CARDINAL ) , while the NORP countries had CARDINAL prisoners per CARDINAL CARDINAL inhabitants on average in DATE , the figure for GPE was DATE . The reason for this low number of prisoners is an extensive use of fines and other types of non - custodial sentences . According to figures from the yearbook on crime statistics from GPE ( PERSON ) in DATE , out of the total number of convictions for penal - code - offences , CARDINAL were fines , CARDINAL per cent were suspended sentences and other non - custodial sentences , leaving CARDINAL of the sentences to be unsuspended prison sentences .

The low prison rate is also a result of short prison terms . In DATE , the average length of prison sentences imposed for penal - code - offences was CARDINAL DATE , and only MONEY of all prison sentences were longer than DATE . Looking at the even longer prison terms from DATE , MONEY — corresponding to CARDINAL prison sentences — exceeded DATE . Most of the long prison sentences are imposed for homicide and drug offences . As for armed robbery of a non - aggravated nature ( section FAC , subsection CARDINAL of LAW ) , a study has revealed that the average length of all prison sentences imposed from DATE was DATE if the person had no prior criminal record , but had committed other offences which were included in the sentence . In DATE the average length of all prison sentences for non - aggravated bank robbery was DATE . However , most bank robbery cases involve offenders with a prior criminal record .

As for supplying drugs , the length of the prison sentence is closely related to the quantity and the kind of drugs in question . Drug dealing with ecstasy , amphetamine and cocaine does not normally result in heavy measures as , for instance , heroine does . To give an example , a person charged with the sale of QUANTITY ecstasy pills would most likely face a CARDINAL to QUANTITY months’

The relevant provisions of LAW ( GPE ) applicable at the time read as follows :

An alien who has lawfully lived in GPE for more than DATE , and an alien issued with a residence permit under sections CARDINAL or CARDINAL may be expelled if :

( ii ) the alien , for several criminal counts , is sentenced to a minimum of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this duration ;

( iv ) the alien is sentenced , pursuant to LAW or CARDINAL or CARDINAL A of LAW , to imprisonment or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this nature ;

( vi ) the alien is sentenced , pursuant to ... section FAC of LAW , to imprisonment or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this nature .

An alien who has lawfully lived in GPE for more than DATE may be expelled if :

( i ) any ground given in LAW is applicable ;

( ii ) the alien is sentenced to a minimum of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this duration ;

( iii ) the alien , for several criminal counts , is sentenced to a minimum of DATE imprisonment or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this duration ;

( iv ) ...

NORP In deciding on expulsion , regard must be had to the question whether expulsion must be assumed to be particularly burdensome , in particular because of :

( i ) the alien ’s ties with the NORP community , including whether the alien came to GPE in his childhood or DATE ;

( ii ) the duration of the alien ’s stay in GPE ;

( iii ) the alien ’s age , health , and other personal circumstances ;

( iv ) the alien ’s ties with persons living in GPE ;

( v ) the consequences of the expulsion for the alien ’s close relatives living in GPE ;

( vi ) the alien ’s slight or non - existent ties with his country of origin or any other country in which he may be expected to take up residence ; and

( vii ) the risk that , in cases other that those mentioned in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , the alien will be ill - treated in his country of origin or any other country in which he may be expected to take up residence .

An alien may be expelled pursuant to LAW to ( vi ) unless the circumstances mentioned in subsection CARDINAL above constitute a decisive argument against doing so .

As a consequence of a judgment , court order or decision ordering an alien to be expelled , the alien ’s visa and residence permit will lapse , and the alien will not be allowed to re - enter GPE and stay in this country without special permission ( entry prohibition ) . An entry prohibition may be time - limited and is reckoned from DATE following departure or return from GPE . The entry prohibition is valid from the time of departure or return from GPE .

An entry prohibition in connection with expulsion under sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL is given for :

( i ) DATE if the alien is sentenced to suspended imprisonment or is sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding DATE or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this nature or duration ;

( ii ) DATE if the alien is sentenced to imprisonment DATE , but not exceeding one year , or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this duration ;

( iii ) DATE if the alien is sentenced to imprisonment exceeding one year , but not exceeding DATE , or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this duration ;

( iv ) an unlimited time if the alien is sentenced to imprisonment for DATE or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this duration .

An entry prohibition in connection with expulsion under LAW , subsection CARDINAL , ( iv ) to ( vi ) is given for a minimum of DATE .

An entry prohibition in connection with expulsion under LAW [ danger to national security or serious threat to public order , safety or health ] is given for an unlimited time . An entry prohibition in connection with expulsion under sections DATE and DATE is given for DATE .

The police authority in charge of the arrangements for departure delivers to the alien a written notice giving the grounds for the entry prohibition and the penalty carried by non - compliance with the prohibition .

An entry prohibition lapses if , under the conditions mentioned in LAW , subsection CARDINAL , the person in question is issued with a residence permit under sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL .

An entry prohibition given to a national of another NORP country may be lifted at DATE where exceptional reasons make it appropriate .

The Government submitted that according to practice , a visitor ’s visa may be issued only in absolutely extraordinary cases to aliens who have been expelled with a permanent prohibition against re - entry . During DATE following the departure , this may be relevant if the alien ’s presence in GPE is imperative , for example in case of acute serious illness of a spouse or a child living in GPE and where consideration for the person(s ) living in GPE makes it appropriate to issue a visa to the expelled person . After the expiry of DATE following the departure , a visa can be issued in practice where exceptional reasons make it appropriate , for example in case of serious illness in the family living in GPE .

The applicant pointed out that the ORG ’s allegation of this practise was not supported by any evidence or reference to national provisions .


Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 5-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The first applicant was born in DATE . The second applicant was born in DATE . They are husband and wife and live in the town of PERSON in LOC .

In DATE the first applicant arrived in GPE on the basis of a valid visa and married the second applicant . In DATE the second applicant gave birth to a daughter . In DATE , after his visa had expired , the first applicant was deported to GPE .

In DATE the second applicant gave birth to a son .

In DATE the first applicant obtained a work visa valid until DATE and resumed his residence in GPE . The visa was later extended until DATE .

In DATE the first applicant went to the GPE department of internal affairs ( hereinafter “ the GPE police department ” ) to lodge an application for a residence permit . The GPE police department did not have the necessary forms ; therefore , the first applicant could not lodge his application . It was only on DATE that the forms became available .

On DATE the first applicant applied for a residence permit for a second time . The GPE police department refused to examine the application and returned the documents to the first applicant .

The first applicant challenged the refusal before a court . On DATE the ORG found that the refusal to examine the application had been unlawful . It ordered that the GPE police department examine the first applicant 's application for a residence permit .

NORP On DATE the GPE police department rejected his application by reference to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No further reasons were provided .

The applicants challenged the refusal before a court . They complained , in particular , that the GPE police department had not given any reasons for the refusal . The first applicant had never been charged with any criminal offence or engaged in any subversive activities . The applicants also claimed that the refusal had interfered with their right to respect for their family life and had caused them non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG found that the decision of DATE had been lawful and rejected the applicants ' claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It found that the GPE police department had received information from ORG that the first applicant posed a national security risk . That information was a ORG secret and could not be made public . There is no indication in the judgment that the information had been made available for judicial scrutiny .

The applicants appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It reiterated that , according to the information from ORG , the first applicant posed a national security risk . That information was a ORG secret and was not subject to judicial scrutiny .

On DATE the GPE police department rejected a new application for a residence permit . It found that the first applicant was unlawfully residing on NORP territory , that he had taken no steps to make his stay legal , and that he would therefore have to leave GPE . The refusal of a residence permit did not hinder his family life .

It appears that the applicants did not challenge the refusal of DATE before a court . Instead they asked ORG to direct that the GPE police department issue the first applicant with a residence permit . They claimed that by refusing to provide the first applicant with a residence permit the authorities had showed disrespect for their family life . They asked for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage . On DATE ORG rejected their claims in the last instance as having no basis in domestic law . It referred to the judgment of DATE and held that there were no reasons to depart from its findings .

On several occasions in DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant was administratively fined for living in GPE without a valid residence permit . However , the domestic courts reversed most of those decisions , finding them procedurally defective or time - barred .

It is apparent from a certificate issued by a deputy head of the Sovetskaya Gavan Town prosecutor 's office on DATE that no criminal proceedings had been brought against the first applicant DATE .

On DATE the first applicant was stopped by the police . The police officer drew up a report on the commission of an offence under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The report was transmitted to a judge .

On DATE the ORG held that the first applicant had infringed the residence regulations and ordered his administrative removal and detention pending removal . On DATE he was placed in a detention centre .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal , remitted the case for a new examination by ORG , and ordered the first applicant 's release . It held that , in accordance with LAW , detention with a view to administrative removal could only be ordered if there were sufficient reasons to believe that the person would try to avoid execution of the removal order . ORG had not given reasons for the detention order and the case file did not contain any information justifying the first applicant 's detention . On DATE the first applicant was released .

On DATE the ORG held that the report of DATE did not indicate which residence regulations had been infringed by the first applicant . It returned the report to the local police department for correction .

On DATE the administrative proceedings against the first applicant were discontinued as time - barred .

In the meantime , on DATE , the GPE police department prepared a decision that the first applicant 's presence on the NORP territory was undesirable and submitted it to the head of ORG for approval . The draft decision indicated that the first applicant had been unlawfully resident on NORP territory and had been repeatedly fined under LAW for his failure to leave GPE after the expiry of the authorised residence period . On DATE the head of ORG confirmed the decision and it became enforceable . The applicants were informed about the decision on DATE .

On DATE the GPE police department asked ORG to order the first applicant 's deportation . On DATE the head of ORG ordered the first applicant 's deportation by reference to section CARDINAL of the PERSON on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No further reasons were provided . The applicants were informed of the decision on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the Sovetskaya ORG ordered the first applicant 's placement in a detention centre with a view to deporting him . It held that the first applicant was unlawfully residing on NORP territory , and that on DATE ORG had ordered his deportation . Therefore , he had to be held in custody until deportation . The first applicant was not present at the hearing . He was informed of the decision on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal and remitted the case . It found that the decision had been taken in the first applicant 's absence , in breach of NORP CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE the ORG for a second time ordered the first applicant 's placement in a detention centre with a view to deporting him . It referred to the same reasons as in the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

It appears that the deportation order was not enforced . The applicant is at present living with his family in GPE .

Until DATE temporary resident foreign nationals were not required to apply for a residence permit . Their presence in the NORP territory was lawful as long as their visa remained valid . On DATE ORG in GPE , no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ( “ the Foreign Nationals Act ” ) was adopted . It introduced the requirement of residence permits for foreign nationals .

A foreign national married to a NORP national living on NORP territory is entitled to a residence permit ( section QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) ) .

A residence permit may be refused only in exhaustively defined cases , particularly if the foreign national advocates a violent change to the constitutional foundations of GPE or otherwise creates a threat to the security of GPE or its citizens ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that a foreign national who infringes the residence regulations of GPE , including by living on the territory of GPE without a valid residence permit or by non - compliance with the established procedure for residence registration , will be liable to punishment by an administrative fine of MONEY and possible administrative removal from GPE . Under Article MONEY § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) a report on the offence described in DATE is drawn up by a police officer . LAW such a report to be transmitted within DATE to a judge or to an officer competent to examine administrative matters . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the determination of any administrative charge that may result in removal from the NORP Federation shall be made by a judge of a court of general jurisdiction . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL guarantees the right to appeal against a decision on an administrative offence to a court or to a higher court .

A competent authority , such as ORG or ORG , may issue a decision that a foreign national 's presence on NORP territory is undesirable . Such decision may be issued if a foreign national is unlawfully residing on NORP territory , or if his or her residence is lawful but creates a real threat to the defensive capacity or security of the ORG , to public order or health , etc . If such a decision has been taken , the foreign national has to leave GPE or will otherwise be deported . That decision also forms the legal basis for subsequent refusal of re - entry into GPE ( section CARDINAL of the PERSON on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving GPE , no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE , as amended on DATE , “ LAW ” ) .

If a police department uncovers circumstances indicated in section CARDINAL of LAW , it must prepare supporting materials , draft a decision that a foreign national 's presence on NORP territory is undesirable and send the decision and supporting materials to ORG for approval . The officials of ORG must submit the materials to the head of ORG and must inform the police department of the decision taken . The police department must immediately send the decision to the foreign national whose presence on NORP territory has been declared undesirable ( sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the ORG on the organisation of the process of making decisions that a foreign national 's presence on NORP territory is undesirable , approved by LAW , No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL August CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW allows domestic courts to order a foreign national 's detention with a view to administrative removal . LAW provides that administrative detention can be authorised in exceptional cases if it is necessary for fair and speedy determination of the administrative charge or for execution of the penalty .

Sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provide that a foreign national against whom an administrative removal order or deportation order has been made can be held in custody until execution of such order . Detention has to be authorised by a court .

The ORG or regional treasury is liable – irrespective of any fault by ORG officials DATE for the damage sustained by an individual on account of unlawful criminal prosecution , unlawful application of a preventive measure in the form of placement in custody or an undertaking not to leave the place of residence , or an unlawful administrative penalty in the form of detention or community work ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . Damage sustained by an individual through unlawful acts of the investigation or prosecution authorities in a form other than listed above is compensated for in accordance with the general grounds giving rise to liability for damage , that is on the condition that the fault of the person who inflicted the damage has been proven ( Article CARDINAL read in conjunction with Article CARDINAL ) .

A court may hold the tortfeasor liable for non - pecuniary damage incurred by an individual through actions impairing his or her personal non - property rights , such as the right to personal integrity and the right to liberty of movement ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Non - pecuniary damage must be compensated for irrespective of the tortfeasor 's fault in the event of unlawful conviction or prosecution , unlawful application of a preventive measure in the form of placement in custody or an undertaking not to leave the place of residence , or an unlawful administrative penalty in the form of detention or community service ( LAW ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE , respectively , and live in GPE .

The applicants are husband and wife and their son and daughter . In DATE the parents travelled to GPE on a trip organised by a travel agency . On DATE the tourist group had dinner at a restaurant where they were served poisonous sea food . As a consequence , the muscles and the nervous systems of the first and the second applicant were seriously damaged which caused PERCENT disability .

In DATE the first applicant brought an action against the travel agency in the Budapest II / III ORG claiming damages . The case was then transferred to the competent ORG .

NORP In an interim judgment ( közbenső ítélet ) , on DATE the ORG established the travel agency ’s responsibility . After a hearing on DATE , in a partial judgment ( részítélet ) of DATE , it ordered the defendant to pay MONEY plus interest to the first applicant , but dismissed his claims for non - pecuniary damage .

In the continued proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL May and DATE . The ORG stated that further hearings took place on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the court delivered a decision ordering the defendant to pay damages and an allowance to the first applicant .

On appeal , on DATE ORG confirmed the first - instance decision . The applicant filed a petition for review on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the petition . This decision was served on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE all CARDINAL applicants brought an action in LOC against the travel agency claiming further damages . Subsequently , the case was transferred to LAW . On DATE the applicants requested in vain that their case be retransferred to ORG in order to facilitate the proceedings .

The Budapest II / III District Court held hearings on DATE and DATE . On DATE it decided to transfer the case to ORG . However , the file was transferred to ORG by mistake . It therefore only reached ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG declared its lack of competence and transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG declared its lack of competence and transferred the file to ORG for the appropriate delegation .

On DATE ORG appointed ORG to hear the case .

On DATE the ORG established that the proceedings had been stayed since DATE because the summonses could not be served on the plaintiffs .

On DATE the court observed that the case had ceased to exist on DATE , ipso iure , after a stay of DATE . This decision became final on DATE .