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

The applicant is a notary . At DATE the ORG passed the State Funds ( Contributions ) Laws which obliged notaries and some other categories of taxpayers to pay contributions to ORG at a rate considerably higher than that applicable to the others . Those thus affected by the laws , including the applicant amongst CARDINAL notaries , alleged that the rate was discriminatory . They applied to ORG to impugn the laws as incompatible with LAW . The applicant 's complaint was lodged on DATE . Since all the applications concerned the same subject the court joined them .

On DATE ORG held a public oral hearing . The President of the GPE ORG was present at the hearing . The court declared the relevant provisions of the laws unconstitutional but maintained them in force until a new law was adopted . Payments made in the meantime were to be offset against future contributions . On DATE the decision of the court was officially published .

The court allegedly failed to inform the applicant about the date of the hearing .

No proceedings in an ordinary court involving the application of the challenged laws were brought by the applicant .

The new law was adopted on DATE and came into force on DATE .

Article CARDINAL of LAW on LAW of DATE ( “ the Law ” ) provides that citizens whose constitutional rights and freedoms are violated by a law applied or to be applied in a specific case are entitled to submit their complaint to ORG of GPE .

By LAW an application is only admissible if ( i ) the law in question affects the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens ; ( ii ) the law has been applied or is to be applied in specific proceedings , finished or pending , before courts of general jurisdiction or any other authority applying the law .

Under LAW may : ( i ) confirm that the law or certain of its provisions comply with the LAW ; or ( ii ) establish that the law or certain of its provisions do not comply with LAW . In the latter case , pursuant to procedural codes in force at the material time , an application may be made to a court which applied the unconstitutional law or to a court which is hierarchically superior . The respective court may then re - open the proceedings and order a fresh examination of the case on the basis of the findings of ORG . Where the unconstitutional law was applied by an authority other than a court , the authority re - considers the case on the basis of the findings of ORG .

Under Articles CARDINAL of the LAW in force at the material time in case ORG declares a law incompatible with the LAW such a law becomes invalid .

Under LAW a judge rapporteur and a president of a session determine the persons to be summoned to the session and order their notification of the place and time of the session .

Under Articles CARDINAL of the PERSON applicants and their representatives are notified about a hearing not later than DATE before it . Each party may have CARDINAL representatives . Notices of hearings before ORG are published and also placed in the building of the court in places accessible to the public .

Under LAW a party makes oral pleadings at a hearing .

According to LAW has a superior legal power and direct application on the whole territory of GPE . Laws and other legal acts shall comply with LAW .

LAW in force at the material time provides that a court shall determine civil cases on the basis of LAW , federal constitutional laws , federal laws and other acts . Under LAW the court , having established non - compliance with LAW of a law applied or to be applied in a specific case refers a matter of constitutionality of the law to ORG and suspends the proceedings .


No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 9

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and lived for a period in GPE , where he married in DATE and had CARDINAL children : TIME . born in DATE , A. born in DATE and F. born in DATE . The family moved to GPE in DATE but , following marital difficulties , the applicant ’s wife left the family home with the children in DATE . She agreed to return in DATE when the applicant agreed to move out . Divorce proceedings were instituted on DATE and the divorce became final on DATE .

Contact between the applicant and his children was arranged by agreement with the mother present DATE . However , in DATE , contact was stopped by the mother who claimed that the children no longer wanted to see their father . In DATE , the applicant ’s former wife made allegations that the applicant had sexually abused the children , but these allegations were not substantiated in investigations carried out by ORG in DATE . It was however considered that the patterns of behaviour of the children were consistent with the behaviour of children under considerable stress and , with the consent of both parents , the family were referred to ORG and FAC for therapeutic intervention . Meanwhile , in DATE , an application by the applicant for a residence ( custody ) order was refused .

On DATE , an interim contact order was made by the Kingston - Upon - Thames County Court providing for DATE supervised access . This contact never took place .

On DATE , the same ORG made a further interim order for supervised access , with DATE access to be by arrangement . CARDINAL periods of supervised access took place on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The children were reported as showing no signs of distress and the CARDINAL younger children as appearing to enjoy seeing the applicant . The DATE access did not take place as the mother took the children to GPE .

A psychiatric report dated DATE noted that the children had felt terrified of the applicant and raised concerns of emotional abuse . It found that the oldest child , TIME . , who suffered intrinsic learning difficulties , had been clearly disturbed by the applicant ’s behaviour and distressed by his mother ’s difficulties in the marriage . A. had been stressed and troubled , with the knowledge of the applicant ’s suicide attempts adding to his emotional burden . The youngest child PERSON was the least troubled , though the memories of hitting and shouting were clearly also frightening and disturbing for her . All CARDINAL children separately indicated that they wanted to live with their mother and were worried about contact with the applicant . There was evidence of a fairly ritualised and damaging cycle of events with the applicant being unreasonably harsh with his children on repeated occasions . Any further contact would have to be handled judiciously and it was of paramount importance to avoid further undue stress to the children .

ORG made a further interim order for supervised access on DATE . This order was , in the main , complied with . A further order was made by ORG on DATE for DATE contact to take place in the presence of a mutual friend or in a public place . In a welfare report before the court at that time , the court welfare officer concluded that a break in contact would be unhelpful in counteracting the children ’s negative views of their father and it was also noted that , if no contact order was made , then contact was unlikely to occur , whatever the children ’s wishes . A psychiatric report dated DATE suggested that there should be an increase in contact , unsupervised , and that there was no reason why overnight stays with the father could not be permitted . The report noted that the applicant had acknowledged hitting the children with a belt in the past , had provided a reason for it ( his illness ) and had apologised to the children for it . The applicant states that he represented himself in the hearings leading up to the DATE order .

On DATE , a contact order was made by ORG including DATE access , TIME stays and making provision for DATE . This contact order has never been complied with . In DATE , the applicant ’s former wife left the family home with the children and moved , it subsequently transpired , to GPE .

On DATE , the applicant brought to the attention of ORG that the order of DATE had not been complied with and applied for an order to compel his former wife to comply , failing which such penal action as the court deemed fit should be imposed . At the hearing of his application on DATE , the applicant appeared in person and his former wife was represented by counsel . The judge was told that the mother was very unhappy about contact , that the telephone was disconnected , that the house appeared to be occupied and that the door was unanswered . The applicant informed the judge that the mother might be suffering from depression . The applicant stated in his memorial that ORG judge said that he had power to make an order requiring the mother to be brought before the court , but suggested instead that the matter should be dealt with by ORG ) because of its greater powers . Therefore on DATE the applicant applied to ORG ex parte .

The applicant ’s application to ORG requested that the contact order of DATE be enforced . He stated that he effectively asked the judge to take such action as was necessary to enforce the order for contact , and that he did not make a specific application because he was following the suggestion of ORG judge and did not know what to do . The applicant appeared in person . Mr Justice Singer invited ORG to act as guardian ad litem for the children and , if accepted , granted leave to ORG to submit documents in the case to such experts as he chose , and for those experts to carry out such examinations and investigations concerning the children as they thought appropriate .

The Official Solicitor accepted the invitation to act on or CARDINAL September CARDINAL . He wrote to the mother at her last known address on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE to arrange for an interview with the children . He received no response . On DATE , he instructed enquiry agents in GPE to seek to ascertain the location of the mother and children . They were unsuccessful .

Meanwhile , it appears that the applicant hired a private detective who traced the children to GPE in DATE . However , the mother moved them again to an unknown address .

The applicant applied ex parte to make the children wards of court and was represented at this stage by counsel . His application requested that the children be located immediately and that the mother be restrained from moving the children from their current address without the leave of the court and that arrangements be made for the children ’s schooling . On DATE , ORG issued an injunction prohibiting the children ’s mother from removing them from jurisdiction without leave of the court and made the CARDINAL children wards of court . It also directed the GPE to seek and locate the children and to notify the applicant ’s solicitors of their address . ( The GPE is a court official who executes orders of the court . )

The GPE was given a description of the children and addresses at which they might be living . He passed the information to the police who found no trace of them at those addresses . The police placed the names of the children and their mother on the police national computer so that , if they came to the attention of the police , their location would be notified to the GPE .

On DATE , ORG wrote to ORG ( ORG ) seeking an address for the mother . On DATE , the ORG forwarded a letter to the mother . The mother did not respond .

As however no progress was apparently being made , the applicant , who was still receiving advice from solicitors , made a further application ex parte to ORG for information to be provided by particular bodies . On DATE , ORG ordered the ORG ( including ORG ) , GPE and ORG , ORG and ORG to divulge to the court any information which it had on the location of the children .

On DATE , ORG wrote again to the ORG , asking them to forward a letter to the mother . She responded on DATE , declining to disclose her address or to take up the invitation to arrange interviews .

An address was provided to ORG by ORG during DATE . The applicant ’s solicitors wrote to the court requesting disclosure of this address . On DATE , leave was given by ORG to disclose the address of the applicant ’s former wife to the applicant ’s solicitor on an undertaking that the solicitor would not disclose the same to the applicant . The applicant stated that this never happened , as his former wife and the children had changed address again . The Government disagreed , saying that the address was supplied but that the applicant ’s enquiry agents were unable to locate the children who had been moved again .

As the applicant felt that he was not making any progress , he applied to ORG again , this time in person . On DATE , ORG again ordered the relevant authorities to disclose any information which they had as to the current address or whereabouts of the children . ORG also ordered that any address or information would not be disclosed to the applicant without leave of the court , but that the court would notify him as soon as possible after receipt of relevant information for the purpose of enabling him to seek further directions . The applicant was informed by the court on DATE that they had new addresses .

The applicant stated that the District Judge refused to disclose the address , so he applied in person ex parte to ORG . The application was adjourned on DATE pending ORG agreeing to act for the children in the wardship proceedings . At the adjourned hearing on DATE , the applicant again appeared in person . ORG disclosed the address to ORG , the children were joined as defendants to the proceedings and the matter was adjourned until DATE to allow the Official Solicitor to report on any information which he had on the whereabouts and welfare of the children . On DATE , ORG wrote to the mother . As issued on DATE , the terms of the ORG order indicated that the children ’s address ( received from ORG ) be disclosed to ORG only .

On DATE , the applicant again appeared in person before ORG . He was granted indirect contact with the children , by way of letters , cards and presents , to be monitored by ORG . Details of the address of the children and the social workers involved in the case were ordered not to be disclosed to the applicant . The matter was adjourned by ORG for further directions in DATE .

On DATE , ORG disclosed to the applicant , who appeared in person , that his children were resident in GPE although , despite his request , he was not informed of their address so as not to unsettle his former wife . Also on DATE ORG ordered ORG to identify for the applicant the appropriate court in which he should issue proceedings in GPE in order to enforce the order for contact made on DATE . ORG also agreed that , upon receiving notice that the father has issued proceedings , it would forward to the relevant court in GPE the address of the children and the social worker instructed in the case , it being for that court to decide whether , and if so when , to disclose this information to the applicant . It then adjourned the proceedings .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s application of DATE to ORG to forward a copy of the contact order of DATE , that order was registered in ORG in GPE . This permitted the order to be treated as an order made by a NORP court , which would enjoy the available powers to enforce it but did not confer any jurisdiction on the NORP courts to vary the order . They had power to act immediately for the welfare of the children ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) or to issue interim directions to secure their welfare pending the determination of the application to enforce the contact order ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

On or DATE , the applicant commenced proceedings for the enforcement of the NORP court order . The applicant stated that he was told that he had to have a solicitor in order to commence proceedings , unless he applied to waive this which would have meant further delay . He therefore instructed solicitors . The Government have submitted that this is not the correct position . There was no requirement for a solicitor to act in these type of proceedings , save that an advocate or solicitor advocate had to sign the petition for enforcement or permission ( though permission could be obtained from the court to proceed in the absence of a signature ) . An order was made on DATE for the service of the proceedings on the mother , and forbidding the mother from removing the children from GPE , pursuant to the applicant ’s request .

On DATE , the mother filed her answers to the proceedings alleging that it was not in the children ’s interests for there to be contact and that the children would be at risk . The mother applied for an order staying the enforcement proceedings pending the commencement by her of proceedings to vary the DATE contact order . The applicant states that the allegations made by the mother in her answers had all been adjudicated on already by the LANGUAGE courts .

The applicant applied again to ORG in GPE , which remained the court of primary jurisdiction , for an order directing the mother to appear before the court to show cause why the contact order should not be amended to provide for further staying and visiting contact at DATE and GPE DATE and thereafter in place of that originally ordered ; why a penal notice should not be attached to the order ; and to provide for an early hearing of the matters . On DATE , ORG refused the application as the applicant had engaged in proceedings in GPE to enforce the contact order and it would be a duplication of those proceedings to consider the same matters . ORG considered it appropriate for the courts of GPE to adjudicate concerning enforcement of the contact order and/or to make their own order for such contact .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a motion asking the NORP court to make an order enforcing the DATE order . This application was heard on DATE . Though it was not opposed , it was not proceeded with by the applicant . The applicant says that when it became clear that the judge was not going to grant enforcement of the order , as the judge did not consider the order made sense , the applicant ’s counsel withdrew the application ( without the applicant ’s specific instructions ) fearing that a refusal of the order would make it difficult for any other judge to disagree .

On DATE , the applicant lodged another motion asking the NORP court to make an order enforcing the DATE order . On DATE , the matter was heard before a different judge and this time the application was defended . In the light of allegations of sexual abuse ( which had been rejected following investigation in GPE ) made by the applicant ’s former wife , a new report was ordered to be prepared quam primum by an advocate . The order stated that a named advocate was to enquire into and report on all the circumstances of the children and the proposed arrangements for their care and upbringing , with particular reference to the question of access . The applicant appealed this order but leave to appeal was refused on DATE . The applicant stated that he had to appear in person as his lawyer would not act .

An advocate , PERSON , was appointed on DATE to carry out enquiries and submit a report . The advocate visited the mother at home on DATE and on DATE , and saw the children alone on DATE and DATE . She spoke to the applicant on the telephone at DATE and arranged to see him on DATE , when they spoke for TIME . On DATE , the advocate visited the doctor , PERSON , who had reported on the children in the family proceedings in GPE , seeing the videos of meetings and also the social worker , PERSON , involved with those proceedings . She visited the teachers of the younger children and saw the guidance teacher of the oldest child on DATE . On DATE , she spoke to PERSON , a NORP social worker involved with the family from DATE , when the mother ’s doctor had made a referral for the family to be assessed as a matter of urgency by ORG for Sick Children , GPE , due to concerns that the children were showing disturbed behaviour . She noted that PERSON had talked to the social worker PERSON , who had told her that TIME . had told him that he did not want to see the applicant . The hospital team had not completed its assessment of the children due , inter alia , to the mother ’s failure to respond to an invitation for a further interview .

The advocate also incorporated in her report the report of DATE prepared for ORG by the social worker PERSON , who had carried out CARDINAL interviews with the children , CARDINAL interviews with the mother and interviews with the children ’s head teacher and class teachers . The advocate submitted her report to the court on DATE .

NORP The advocate ’s report recounted the history of the proceedings and her own contact with the children , their mother and the applicant . It concluded :

“ This is a complex case . CARDINAL fact that I think is established is that these children were found by a number of professionals ... in DATE and DATE to be under stress . What was never established to anyone ’s apparent satisfaction was the reason for that . It seems to me from my investigations ... that the stress is likely to have been brought on by their GPE relationship and the way that impinged on them . I think it is also most probable given the children ’s ( particularly < PERSON ) accounts of being belted by the < applicant > that that behaviour was at least part of the cause of their stress . I accept the < applicant ’s > point that the children ’s stance may have been influenced a great deal even if only indirectly by the fact that they live with and now rely on < their mother>. I have to give the children some credit however particularly at their age for knowing their own minds . They seem to have quite clearly determined to communicate to me both by words and deed that they did not wish to see their father and that they were in < A. ’s > words ‘ better with their mother than they were with both of them’ .

... The question is what is the best way forward for them ... . The < applicant > however accepts that at this stage DATE since the order and since he last saw them that it would not be appropriate for him to have the access that was ordered in DATE . It would not be in their interests for him simply to turn up and take them over the times ordered . If there were to be access it would have to be as he acknowledged built up over time starting with supervised access of some sort possibly with some sort of counselling .

... I also accept to some extent what he suggests to the effect that the < mother > has made it her business to ensure the children will not see him . What is difficult to get to the bottom of is her motive . I think I accept that she is motivated by what she believes is in the best interests of the children even if she may on occasions be misguided . I think she has not always told the truth ... . Effectively she did not want to do anything to make access work . She was only keen to take those steps which she had to show that it would not work .

... The < mother > has also been good at passing certain anxieties which could perhaps have been kept from ... the children whether deliberately or otherwise < Her suspicion that the applicant had killed the children ’s guinea pig , that they were being tracked down by a private detective > ... She has thus instilled fear in the children which she has fuelled by changing their NORP names ... .

... I also accept that some of the evidence I heard and saw appeared to contradict the < mother ’s > absolute view that the children were always terrified about seeing the < applicant>.

It may be that my only role in this Petition is to report to your Lordship on the circumstances of the children and I think I have done that in perhaps more detail than might be desired . If I am to give a recommendation with regard to disposal of this Petition it is clear as stated above that it would not be in the best interests of the children that it be immediately granted in the terms sought .

I am not clear if I am expected thereafter to give a view as to whether any access should be awarded in this or any other Process . If I were to be expected to do so it would clearly be the most difficult task . On the one side I accept that the < mother > has managed to manipulate the situation to a great extent and has deliberately flouted the NORP order and kept the children from their father for DATE . I also accept that it is generally thought to be preferable , other things being equal , for children to grow up seeing both parents ... . But if I were to have to give a view I think I would have to allow myself to be influenced by what I saw of these children and of their parents . The < applicant > appeared to have an obsessive personality and be particularly obsessed by his relationship with the < mother>. His attitude and intensity would be wearing on anyone including his children . Further I did gain the impression even at this stage that he was more interested in the < mother > than the children .

The < mother > was certainly pleasant in demeanour even if she was obviously much more determined and hardnosed than she appeared . She certainly had manipulated the situation effectively . But ultimately I think the only course which it would be in this case appropriate to take would be to listen to and observe the children . They not only told me and meant it ... that they did not wish to see their father . They also seemed ... to be genuinely much happier than they had been and to be very much more settled and confident than they ever have been . It would be unfortunate if this were to be disturbed by a further attempt to re - establish a relationship with their father ... particularly when it seems in all the circumstances that it would probably be unsuccessful . For these reasons ... I would humbly recommend ... with some hesitation , that the children be allowed to continue as they are and not be asked to go through further arranged visits with their father at this stage . ”

Following extended discussion and correspondence between the applicant and his legal advisers , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant applied , it appears with the assistance of a lawyer , for a hearing of his petition which the court on DATE listed for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE , the applicant applied for leave to amend the order sought by him - firstly , to insert a plea that the mother ’s answers should be rejected and the orders sought by the applicant be granted in full and , secondly , for an order that the mother deliver the children into the care and control of the applicant between TIME on one weekday forthwith , and on every second weekend thereafter between TIME DATE until TIME on DATE , and between TIME on DATE after the said initial access period . This arguably would have had the effect of increasing the contact from CARDINAL out of CARDINAL weekends to CARDINAL out of CARDINAL weekends .

On DATE , the mother applied for an order withdrawing her answers to the applicant ’s petition , which was unopposed by the applicant and granted by the court on DATE .

On DATE , an order was made by the court allowing the applicant ’s petition to be amended and an order for contact was made in the amended terms .

On DATE , the applicant commenced proceedings seeking to have the mother punished for contempt for failure to comply with the order of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , the mother applied for the rescission of the order of CARDINAL DATE on the basis that it was incorrect because it was at variance with the order of DATE , lacked clarity and contained material errors .

NORP The applicant returned to ORG in GPE requesting that the original order of DATE be varied . This approach was taken on the basis that ORG could not refuse to enforce a fresh order . However , given the change in circumstances , the applicant decided in DATE that the chances of getting any court to enforce the order of DATE were remote , and he decided to withdraw the action for enforcement .

On DATE , the mother applied to the courts in GPE for an order removing proceedings to GPE and , on DATE , the applicant applied again for a contact and/or residence order . The mother mistakenly lodged her application with ORG that issued the original contact order , which on DATE declined to hear the matter as it was now a ORG case . In a judgment handed down on CARDINAL DATE by ORG , Mr Justice Singer found it appropriate that the decisions as to contact be considered by the NORP courts , and made an order under section CARDINAL of LAW . This decision was taken with particular regard to the statement by the former wife ’s NORP lawyers that they could issue proceedings within DATE in GPE to determine custody and contact . The children were however to remain wards of court and it would be open to the applicant to apply to lift the stay on proceedings in GPE if the proceedings in GPE were not pursued . The judge noted that the applicant claimed that he would be disadvantaged by the change of jurisdiction , as he was not conversant with NORP procedures and as it would be more expensive for him to travel to GPE for hearings and to consult with lawyers . However , he found that the mother and children were firmly settled in GPE and that any difficulties posed by the mother in filing evidence or co - operating with interim orders would be more speedily dealt with if the proceedings were before the NORP courts . He commented that to some extent the NORP courts had already entered into the merits and that the reporter , who had been unclear as to her role , may have gone beyond her remit in assisting the court in its enforcement role when indicating that the DATE order was not one which she would subscribe to .

On DATE , the mother commenced proceedings in ORG in which she sought an order that there should be no contact between the children and the applicant . The applicant sought an order for contact by a defence lodged on DATE . A hearing was set down in GPE for DATE .

On DATE , the order of CARDINAL DATE was rescinded by the NORP court on the joint application of the mother and the applicant .

On DATE , the applicant applied for interim contact , which application came before the court on DATE but was not proceeded with by the applicant ’s counsel . The hearing set for DATE was deferred by agreement of both parties , following the mother ’s voluntary co - operation in seeing a psychologist , allowing the children to be seen by the psychologist and permitting the applicant to send the children cards and presents .

On DATE , an order was made by consent that the applicant should have contact as agreed between the applicant and his former wife and as consented to by the children . The applicant stated that as a result he has had indirect contact on a handful of occasions when either the applicant ’s sister or sister - in - law were allowed to see the children and convey messages , an indirect means of getting letters , presents and pocket money to the children and , very recently , via e - mail . A contact meeting was arranged , for the first time , since DATE , for TIME .

In determining applications for contact , as with any question with respect to the upbringing of a child , the courts’ paramount consideration is the welfare of the child - section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW GPE and GPE and sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Parent and LAW Act DATE and subsequently section CARDINAL ) of the Children ( Scotland ) Act DATE for GPE .

The case - law recognises that the rights of the parents should only be interfered with when required by the welfare of the child ( e.g. In re GPE [ DATE ] ORG ) and that it is almost always in the interests of the child that he or she should have contact with the non - custodial parent where the parents are separated ( e.g. Re H [ DATE ] CARDINAL FLR CARDINAL , Re R [ DATE ] CARDINAL FLR CARDINAL , Re P ( Contact : Supervision ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL FLR CARDINAL ) .

The courts may issue orders relevant to altering the residence of the child or the general powers of enforcement available in respect of failure to comply with a court order . In particular , they can commit a parent to prison or sequester their assets .

ORG has stated that the courts should not hesitate to use their powers of enforcement where it will overall promote the welfare of the child but that cases may arise , if infrequently , where a court may be compelled to conclude that in the existing circumstances an order for immediate direct contact should not be ordered where to do so would injure the child ( Re O ( Contact : Imposition of Conditions ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL FLR CARDINAL ) .

ORG has power pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE to authorise an officer of the court or police constable to take charge of a child and deliver him or her to a person to whom an order requires that the child be given up for , inter alia , purposes of contact .

ORG may make a “ seek and find ” order , requiring that the GPE find the relevant child and take him or her into custody for the purposes of delivering as directed by the court ; or a “ seek and locate ” order requiring that the child be located only .

The ORG is a court official who executes orders of the ORG . He does not fulfil the role of an investigator or enquiry agent . It is not his function to set up independent lines of enquiry of his own . The GPE acts on information provided to him by the parties in a case and will be assisted by the police , including a special department of ORG which conducts investigations on his behalf .

The orders that ORG makes depend on the nature of the application made to the court by a party in the case and on the evidence provided . The court does not determine what order to make independently of this .

The types of order include :

i ) permitting publicity , through the media , about the child and the fact that there is a court order trying to locate the child ;

ii ) requiring any one who has relevant information about the child ’s whereabouts , to disclose it to the GPE , and the ORG ; and

iii ) requesting the disclosure of addresses from Government departments .

The Official Solicitor is Official Solicitor only to ORG and GPE ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) . He or she has no legal powers or role in GPE nor any independent power to enforce any order , any such step having to be taken through the court and subject to the court ’s control . The court can invite ORG to act for children but can not require him or her to do so . When ORG is invited to act as guardian ad litem for children in proceedings he or she does not have any role independent of the proceedings , only being there to represent the children in those proceedings . He or she collects evidence and participates in the proceedings as considered appropriate . ORG is not in the position of a court welfare officer and is not part of the social welfare authorities .

LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) confers on the court dealing with the matrimonial affairs the primary jurisdiction over the granting of children orders except where it considers it would be “ more appropriate ” for matters to be determined in another part of GPE ( sections CARDINALA(CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) ) .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides for the recognition of children orders made in any part of GPE . The procedure requires the court which made the order to send the relevant documents to the appropriate court in the other part of GPE , where the prescribed officer of the receiving court on receiving the certified order must forthwith cause the order to be registered . The new court in which the order is registered has the “ same powers for the purpose of enforcing the order as it would have if it had itself made the order ” ( section CARDINAL ) . The decision of how to enforce the order must depend on what “ will overall promote the welfare of the child ” ( Re O ( Contact : Imposition of Conditions ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL FLR CARDINAL ) . In balancing the competing interests of those involved , the courts retain jurisdiction to refuse an order if satisfied , for example , that enforcement would result in physical or moral injury to the child ( PERSON v. PERSON CARDINAL at CARDINALB ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a robbery by punching GPE and taking a “ PERSON ” watch from him worth MONEY ( PLN ) . The court also relied on the severity of the penalty that was likely to be imposed on the applicant and the fact that he had been previously convicted of another robbery , for which he had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended .

On DATE the applicant was indicted before ORG . The prosecutor established that on DATE , in PERSON train station , GPE , a homeless person , had been stopped by an individual who had taken a can of beer from him . The individual had then returned , hit GPE in the face , causing a bruise , and taken his watch . When the police arrived , GPE identified the applicant as the perpetrator . On his arrest the applicant had dropped the watch and it had been returned to its owner , GPE

On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention , finding that the grounds previously given remained relevant . Moreover , the court did not find any circumstances that would point in favour of the applicant ’s release .

On DATE the Starogard Gdański District Court , to which the case had been transferred , dismissed the applicant ’s request for release and further extended his pre - trial detention . It relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed .

It appears that on DATE the trial court held the first hearing . Subsequently , hearings were held at regular intervals .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention , relying solely on the likely severity of the sentence .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s detention was further extended . The court ’s reasons included CARDINAL grounds : the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the severity of the penalty that was likely to be imposed .

On DATE the court extended the detention of the applicant relying , in addition to the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed , on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings .

On DATE the Starogard Gdański District Court found the applicant guilty of the robbery of a watch worth not less than PLN CARDINAL , committed within DATE of his previous conviction . The court established that both the applicant and the victim had been under the influence of alcohol . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment .

The applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the judgment . It appears that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal with ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) and that the judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention , having served the totality of his sentence .

On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant of the charge of having stolen a can of beer worth ORG MONEY from GPE It appears that the judgment was not appealed against and became final .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The relevant statistical data , recent amendments to LAW designed to streamline criminal proceedings and references to relevant ORG materials can be found in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Anatoly Kovler;George Nicolaou;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

In DATE the applicants bought a flat in a block of flats under construction from PERSON , a private company .

On DATE the applicants sued PERSON claiming that the flat had a number of construction defects . They requested repairs to be done and claimed damages .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed their claims .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal , set the judgment aside and remitted the case for fresh examination .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicants further specified their claims , following which the court adjourned the hearing to enable the respondent to familiarise itself with the changes .

The hearing of DATE did not take place as CARDINAL of the applicants failed to appear .

On DATE the respondent motioned for involvement of CARDINAL co - respondents which included CARDINAL private companies and a municipal agency .

NORP The hearing of DATE did not take place due to the judge ’s illness .

On DATE the court granted the above motion and the applicant ’s motion for filing of some additional documents and adjourned the hearing .

The applicants again specified their claims on DATE .

On DATE the proceedings were adjourned to enable CARDINAL of the co - respondents to study the case file .

The hearing of CARDINAL DATE was adjourned at the request of CARDINAL of the respondents in order to enable it to draw up an act for elimination of the defects in the applicants’ flat . The applicants did not object .

On DATE the court scheduled a construction expert examination . The proceedings were resumed on DATE when the court again adjourned the hearing following additional specification of the ORG claims .

On DATE ORG granted the claims in part , following which the parties appealed . On DATE the appeal court sent the case back to the first instance for consideration of the applicants’ objections to TIME . On DATE the hearing at the appeal court did not take place following lack of due notification and the resulting default in appearance of the respondents . On DATE ORG overturned the judgment of DATE and ordered new examination at the trial court .

The hearing of CARDINAL DATE did not take place due to the respondents’ default in appearance .

The hearings scheduled for DATE , DATE and DATE did not take place as the applicants and CARDINAL of the respondents failed to appear .

On DATE the court decided that the defaulting parties had been duly summoned and left the claims without consideration .

Neither of the parties provided a copy of the above decision or the hearing minutes recorded DATE and DATE .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

On DATE police officers from the anti - terrorist branch of ORG arrested the applicant , who was a student at the time , on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , the ORG .

On DATE the head of the anti - terrorist branch of ORG wrote a letter to ORG at ORG requesting permission for an extension of the applicant 's detention in police custody until DATE . On DATE the Public Prosecutor no . CARDINAL granted the extension requested .

On DATE ORG no . DATE at ORG questioned the applicant in relation to his actions within the ORG and submitted a petition to ORG requesting an order for the applicant 's detention on remand .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before ORG which ordered his detention on remand .

On DATE the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG charging the applicant with membership of the ORG . The charges were brought under LAW of LAW and LAW no . ORG as well as LAW no . CARDINAL ( Traffic Act ) .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

On DATE the applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment in accordance with LAW of LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ Any person who , with the intention of committing the offences defined in ORG ... , forms an armed gang or organisation or takes leadership ... or command of such a gang or organisation or assumes some special responsibility within it shall be sentenced to not DATE imprisonment .

The other members of the gang or organisation shall be sentenced to not CARDINAL and not DATE imprisonment . ”

Under LAW ( Law no . ORG of DATE ) , the offence defined in CARDINAL of LAW is classified as a “ terrorist ” act .

Pursuant to LAW no . ORG , penalties laid down in LAW as punishment for the offences defined in LAW and CARDINAL of the Act are increased by CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person .

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with the formalities and conditions prescribed by law :

The arrested or detained person must be brought before a judge within TIME at the latest or , in the case of offences committed by CARDINAL person , within DATE ... These time - limits may be extended during a state of emergency ...

A person deprived of his liberty for whatever reason shall have the right to take proceedings before a judicial authority which shall give a speedy ruling on his case and order his immediate release if it finds that the deprivation of liberty was unlawful .

Compensation must be paid by the ORG for damage sustained by persons who have been victims of treatment contrary to the above provisions , as the law shall provide . ”

Under LAW no . CARDINAL on procedure in state security courts , only these courts can try cases involving the offences defined in LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .

At the material time LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , amending the legislation on criminal procedure , provided that , with regard to offences within the jurisdiction of state security courts , any arrested person had to be brought before a judge within TIME at the latest , or , in the case of offences committed by CARDINAL person , within DATE .


The applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Imatra . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by Mr PERSON , Agent , and Mr PERSON , ORG , both from ORG .

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

The applicant was charged before ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätt ) with CARDINAL counts of aggravated fraud and debtor ’s dishonesty . In the same case CARDINAL other defendants were charged with various types of economic offences .

On DATE the court proceedings in ORG commenced . The court was composed of CARDINAL professional presiding judge and CARDINAL lay members . The court heard the defendants and CARDINAL witnesses . The case was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL witnesses gave evidence and the defendants were again heard . The case was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE two witnesses gave evidence and the defendants were again heard . The case was adjourned until DATE .

Meanwhile , the presiding judge was changed and a new judge presided over the hearing on DATE . CARDINAL witness gave evidence . The case was adjourned until DATE , when CARDINAL witness gave evidence and the final statements were presented .

On DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty on CARDINAL count of aggravated fraud and debtor ’s dishonesty . He was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment of DATE and DATE and ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL in damages jointly and severally with CARDINAL other defendants . The applicant was acquitted in respect of CARDINAL charges . In so far as the judgment concerned his conviction for debtor ’s dishonesty , the court based itself on documentary evidence and the testimony of CARDINAL of the witnesses heard before the presiding judge was changed . That witness ’s testimony concerned certain banking transactions with which the witness had been charged in her capacity as bank employee .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätt ) , requesting an oral hearing . On DATE ORG rejected the request for an oral hearing and upheld the conviction in respect of debtor ’s dishonesty , but acquitted the applicant of the aggravated fraud . ORG ordered that one of the defendants should not have to pay damages . It upheld ORG decision in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants , but limited the damages to be paid by those CARDINAL to FIM CARDINAL,CARDINAL each . In addition , ORG convicted the applicant and another defendant to pay , with joint liability , ORG CARDINAL based on the claim of the bankruptcy estate , which claim ORG had dismissed .

The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) which , on DATE , granted such leave concerning ORG order for damages to be paid by the CARDINAL co - defendants .

On DATE ORG gave its judgment and lifted ORG order in so far as it concerned the limitation of the damages to be paid by the co - defendants to the bankruptcy estate . ORG found that this issue had not been addressed before ORG and therefore ORG should not have decided it . ORG order concerning damages was thus upheld .

The relevant domestic law as in force at the relevant time may be summarised as follows :

According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) , ORG could , when necessary , hold an oral hearing where parties , witnesses and experts could be heard , and other evidence could be taken . The oral hearing could be restricted to a certain issue .

According to the domestic legislation in force at the relevant time there was no prohibition against changing the presiding judge during the proceedings . The new Criminal Procedure Act ( laki oikeudenkäynnista rikosasoissa , lag om rättegång i bråttmål ) came into force on DATE . According to LAW , LAW of that LAW , the main hearing shall be restarted in case the district court has to take on a new member due to the lack of quorum .

According to LAW the chairman and CARDINAL lay judges constitute the quorum in a district court . The lay judges have a personal vote . The presiding judge shall explain to the lay judges the issues that have arisen in the case and the provisions applicable to the issues . In case of a vote , the opinion of the majority is to prevail . In the event of a tie , the opinion more lenient to the defendant is to prevail .


CASE OF PARASKEVA TODOROVA v. BULGARIA - [English Translation] by European Roma Rights Centre "ERRC"

Violation of Art. 14+6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in the GPE region . She is a NORP citizen and belongs to the GPE ethnocultural minority .

In DATE , on an undisclosed date , ORG opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for fraud ; she was reproached in particular for the fraudulent appropriation of the sum of MONEY ( MONEY ) and the jewels of a certain PERSON On DATE , she was sentenced to trial in ORG of GPE .

During the proceedings , ORG heard the prosecution and defence witnesses , gathering documentary evidence and the conclusions of experts . The concerned party claimed that on DATE of the events in question , DATE , she was in GPE , a town QUANTITY from the victim ’s village , and that she had consulted a doctor because she had felt ill . She submitted a doctor ’s medical certificate and had her son ’s companion interviewed . In her defence speech , her lawyer emphasised that the police had not found significant amounts of money or jewellery at the applicant ’s home . She challenged the reliability of the identity parade carried out at the preliminary stages of investigation and drew the court ’s attention to the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution ’s witnesses as to the age and the physical appearance of the applicant who had defrauded the victim . The lawyer insisted that the first of CARDINAL prosecution witnesses , a neighbour , had seen a woman of GPE origin approaching and speaking with the victim , but that she was not in a position to recognize the individual . In addition , during the identity parades and in the courtroom , the second witness , another neighbour , had stated that she was not sure whether the applicant was the woman who had defrauded the victim . As for the third of these witnesses , the counsel for the applicant noted that she was the granddaughter of the victim and invited the court not to grant credit to her statements . The lawyer admitted that the applicant had previously been sentenced for theft . However , her last conviction was DATE .

In her defence speech , the district prosecutor invited the court to recognize the applicant guilty of the alleged facts : she had been recognized by the victim and CARDINAL witnesses against her . The testimony of a third witness corroborated the conclusion that the concerned party had fraudulently taken the money and jewels of the victim . She invited the court not to grant credit to the evidence of the defence ’s witness , who was among those close to the applicant . In view of the preponderance of mitigating circumstances in the present case and of the applicant ’s state of health , the prosecutor argued in favour of a suspended conviction and a sentence close to the minimum provided for by LAW .

On DATE , ORG , consisting of a professional judge and of CARDINAL lay assessors ( съдебни заседатели ) , pronounced its judgment in which it found the applicant guilty of defrauding PERSON and sentenced her to DATE of imprisonment . The reasons for the judgment were issued to the applicant in DATE and bore the signature of the professional judge who had presided over ORG trial . At the beginning of these reasons , among other personal information used to identify the applicant , such as her place and date of birth , her home address and her unique identification number , her GPE origin was also listed . In the fact - finding portion of the reasoning , the court found that the accused had entered the victim ’s home fraudulently , suggesting to her that her family had been struck by black magic which she could dispel . Taking advantage of PERSON ’s credulity , she took the money and jewellery that she then kept in her home . The court based these findings on the statements of the prosecution witnesses which it found to be consistent with the other evidence gathered . It did not retain the statements of the defence witness who had explained that the applicant had visited relatives in GPE in DATE and that she had consulted a doctor there . The court refused to take into account the medical certificate presented by the applicant : even if it was dated DATE , there was no date after its reference number , as is normally the case . Similarly , the doctor had affixed his stamp on the document , but it lacked the stamp of the hospital . The court found that the sentence should be CARDINAL years’ imprisonment because of the balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case . Among the aggravating circumstances , it mentioned the negative data on the applicant ’s personality , previous convictions , the absence of a stable job , the gravity of the alleged acts , the high amount of money taken by the applicant , and the operating mode thereof . The court held as a mitigating circumstance the advanced age of the applicant .

ORG refused to suspend the execution of the DATE sentence for the following reasons :

“ The decision to impose an effective sentence of imprisonment in this case arises from the legal obligation for the court ( LAW ) to determine whether suspension of the sentence ’s execution is compatible with the objectives of the penal sanction . The court considers that this is not the case in this case , especially as there is a feeling of impunity , especially among members of minority groups , for whom a conditional sentence is not a conviction ( this concerns general prevention ) . Moreover , this conclusion is equally valid with regard to special prevention – the execution of the sentence imposed will prevent [ the applicant ] from committing other criminal offenses and [ will enable her ] to correct her behaviour and to rehabilitate herself . ”

The applicant appealed against this judgment . She considered that the court based its findings on the statements of the prosecution ’s witnesses , who did not prove her implication in the acts alleged against her , and that the lower court refused to obtain evidence corroborating the defence ’s case . At her request , ORG questioned the doctor who issued the medical certificate , as well as the nurse who worked with him . Both confirmed that the applicant had come to the doctor ’s office on TIME for a matter of high blood pressure . The examination was finished after TIME . In her plea , the applicant ’s lawyer reiterated her arguments before the first - instance court concerning the credibility of the prosecution ’s witnesses’ statements and the accountant ’s alibi ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and argued that the lower court had taken into account the applicant ’s ethnicity to justify its decision . She invited the regional court to acquit her client or to give her no more than a suspended sentence .

On DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It upheld again the statements of the prosecution ’s witnesses , which it considered consistent with the other evidence . It did not uphold the statements of the applicant ’s son ’s companion , believing that they were not sufficiently specific . It found that the applicant ’s allegation that she had , on DATE , consulted a doctor in GPE was well established . However , in the absence of any indication as to the exact time of the medical visit , the court found that , given the length of the consultation and the distance between the town of GPE and the victim ’s village , in theory as well as in practice , the interested party would have had the opportunity to go to PERSON ’s home at the time indicated by the witnesses , namely TIME on DATE . In its part on the appropriateness of suspending the execution of the sentence , the judgment of ORG reads as follows :

“ The appeal court shares the reasons for the inapplicability of a suspended sentence with respect to PERSON . It agrees wholeheartedly with the opinion of the initial court that a possible suspension of execution could not contribute to the accomplishment of the objectives of general and specific prevention because , on one hand , it would have created a feeling of impunity , and on the other , it would not have prevented [ the applicant ] from resuming her wrongful behaviour , and the sentence would not have had a deterring effect on other members of society . ”

This judgment was not subject to appeal in ordinary cassation .

On DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG provided for by LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of LAW . She claimed that her conviction was unfair , discriminatory , and contrary to domestic law and to international conventions ratified by GPE , including LAW . The applicant requested ORG to order the re - examination of the case or to potentially modify the judgment of ORG .

In her defence brief submitted to ORG , the applicant ’s counsel challenged in particular the courts’ reasoning concerning sentencing and the refusal to suspend the execution of the sentence . It argued that the file contained no information which could lead to the conclusion that there was negative information on the applicant ’s personality . The applicant had received a pardon after her prior convictions , which obligated the courts to no longer consider her criminal record as an aggravating circumstance . Given the unemployment rate in the country and the age of the applicant , the lack of a stable job could not be considered as such a circumstance . As for the gravity of the events , this was part of the very characteristics of the penal infraction for which the conviction had been made , which prevented the courts from taking up the same argument for also arguing it as an aggravating circumstance . Moreover , according to the consistent legal precedents of the domestic courts , the amount of the money appropriated was not significant . The decision of the courts not to suspend the execution of the applicant ’s sentence was motivated by her membership with a minority ethnic group . The applicant ’s counsel argued that this same motivation demonstrated the bias of the court that had sentenced her client .

In a judgment on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . ORG found that the lower courts had correctly established the facts on the bases of the relevant evidence gathered during the criminal investigation and in court . They had correctly characterized the established events as fraud and determined the length of the sentence imposed by taking into account the seriousness of the events and the personality of the applicant in light of previous criminal infractions . ORG admitted that the formal conditions for a sentence suspension had been met , particularly in view of the fact that the applicant had been rehabilitated . However , it found that the conviction of an effective sentence was justified for the following reasons :

“ It has been rightly admitted [ by the lower courts ] that the execution of the sentence was indispensable and justified from society ’s point of view . Thus , the accused will be deprived of the opportunity to resume her wrongful behaviour and [ the penal sanction ] will have a deterring effect on other members of society . ”

Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW proclaims the principle of equality of citizens before the law and prohibits any restriction of their rights or privileges based on , among others , race or ethnicity . LAW , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( hereinafter the ORG ) , obligates the courts , the public prosecutor ’s department , and the bodies responsible for the criminal investigation to apply the law uniformly to all citizens .

According to LAW , the court may suspend enforcement of the sentence of imprisonment imposed if the term of imprisonment does not exceed DATE , if the concerned party has not already been convicted to a term of imprisonment for a criminal offense prosecuted ex officio and if the court finds that the objectives of the penal sanction can be attained without the imposition of an effective penalty . The existence of a previous conviction does not preclude , in principle , the application of LAW , if the party in question has benefited from rehabilitation ( see , for example , ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL на ВКС по н.д. № GPE , NORP н.о. ) .

According to LAW , the imposition of a criminal penalty has the following objectives : to correct the behaviour of the convicted person and encourage him or her to respect the laws and virtue ; to prevent the possibility for him or her to commit other criminal offenses ; to prevent criminal offenses by other members of society and encourage in them respect for the law and good virtues .

According to LAW ORG , the judgments of regional courts rendered in the appeal court , when they confirm the judgments of initial courts , are not susceptible to ordinary appeal .

Nevertheless , these judgments can be criticised for the same deficiencies which justify appeal in cassation ( non - observance of substantive or procedural legislation or imposition of an unfair penalty ) before ORG by the appeal provided by LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of the ORG . This plea , which the legislature regulated in the chapter of the ORG dedicated to the reopening of criminal proceedings , can be introduced by the sentenced person , through the court of first instance ( LAW , paragraph CARDINAL ) within DATE from the date of the judgment of the appeal court ( LAW , paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG ) .

If ORG finds any of the aforementioned breaches of substantive or procedural rules , it is bound to overturn the judgment of the lower court and may remit the case for reconsideration , terminate the criminal proceedings , acquit the person concerned or amend the judgment under appeal ( Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG ) .

In view of Articles CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL and LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of the ORG , the public prosecutor is obligated to request the reopening of the criminal proceedings of a convicted person within DATE of the judgement of ORG finding a violation of the LAW , if the violation found is of particular importance for the outcome of the criminal proceedings . The body competent to decide in this case is ORG .