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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE , GPE . They represent their minor daughter , PERSON . PERSON before the ORG . PERSON . PERSON was born in DATE .

In DATE PERSON . PERSON suffered paralysis as a consequence of a compulsory polio inoculation . In DATE the applicants , as her representatives , brought an action against the NORP State claiming compensation and a DATE allowance . The parties reached a friendly settlement . On the applicants ' request , in DATE the compensation and the allowance were raised . In DATE ORG partly accepted their claim for the value of a special car .

On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG , sitting as a first instance court , claiming a raise in the DATE allowance as a result of inflation and the high cost of schooling .

Following the court 's order , on DATE an expert submitted an opinion on the matter .

On DATE the applicants modified their action .

On DATE ORG partly granted the applicants ' claims .

Upon the applicants ' appeal , on DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to ORG .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE the expert submitted another opinion . On DATE the applicants clarified their claims about inflation .

On DATE ORG partly accepted the applicants ' claims .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG for the full claim .

On DATE the applicants requested the court to deliver a judgment , and modified their claims in view of the lapse of time since their appeal had been lodged .

On DATE the applicants again requested the court to deliver a judgment and modified their claims , given the time lag .

On DATE and DATE ORG held hearings . In a judgment of DATE , ORG partly modified the first - instance decision .

On the applicants ' petition for review , on DATE ORG review bench increased the award .


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

A.

The applicant is a medical doctor . In DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) was informed of a number of complaints against the applicant by QUANTITY female patients . In DATE the police informed the ORG that they were investigating allegations of indecent assault by the applicant . On DATE the ORG received written complaints from the CARDINAL patients to which the information of DATE referred . The complaints included allegations of sexual assault and blackmail .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Committee ” ) of the ORG decided that there was a prima facie case for the holding of an inquiry . On DATE ORG made an order restraining the applicant from practising medicine pending the outcome of the proposed inquiry . That order was not published . However , a further order of ORG dated DATE , removed the applicant ’s name from the register of practitioner ’s and restrained him from practising medicine pending the inquiry and all consequent proceedings . ORG also agreed that the ORG could make public the “ sequence of events ” including the orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . ORG issued a press release on DATE which included the applicant ’s name , the terms of those CARDINAL ORG orders and details as to how an individual can complain to the ORG about a medical practitioner . Further complaints were then received from former female patients of the applicant . The applicant also claims that the chairperson of the ORG also made public statements about the case and that newspaper articles appeared which could only have emanated from the ORG .

On DATE the oral hearing before the ORG commenced . The applicant applied to have the inquiry held in public , stating that he wished to redress the damage done to his reputation by the publicity to which the case had already been subject . In exercising its discretion on the subject , the inquiry considered , inter alia , the necessity to ensure that members of the public could freely and without repercussions make complaints regarding their medical practitioners ; the necessity to protect the confidentiality of the doctor / patient relationship ; the nature of the allegations made ; the likely affect on the administration of justice of a hearing in public ; the powers of the ORG to protect the private lives of individuals even if the inquiry was held in public ; the protection against bias offered by a public hearing and the guarantees offered to the practitioner by the appeal to ORG . ORG found that the principles of natural justice and fair procedures required the inquiry to be held in private .

The applicant sought leave to apply to ORG by way of an application for judicial review for an order of certiorari quashing the above decision of ORG . ORG refused leave . On DATE ORG gave leave to so apply to ORG on CARDINAL grounds . In the first place , to inquire whether the ORG was entitled to rule that the whole of the inquiry be held in private , the applicant arguing that this was contrary to ORG DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , to the LAW and to LAW . Secondly , to enquire as to whether the proceedings were prosecuted , and the decision ( that the inquiry was to be held in private ) was made , in circumstances which were inconsistent with the objective separation of the functions of prosecutor and adjudicating tribunal . Included in this latter ground , were the propositions that the proceedings before the ORG were unfair and that the ORG ’s impartiality had been compromised .

On DATE ORG rejected the application and awarded costs against the applicant . ORG noted in its judgment that , when it considers decisions of the ORG brought before it , it was not exercising an appellate jurisdiction as ORG will “ hear all the evidence as if it was a court sitting at first instance ” . ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal by judgment dated DATE and costs were awarded against the applicant . In its judgment , that court noted that only ORG can decide to remove a practitioner ’s name from the register and that the applicant would be “ entitled to a full rehearing and possibly to a rehearing in public ” if and when the ORG ’s decision was brought before ORG , ORG adding that when the procedure has been exhausted in the ORG , in the ORG and in ORG , a final appeal would lie to ORG , but it was not the function of ORG to monitor the proceedings as they unfolded . Costs were awarded against the applicant .

The proceedings against the applicant under LAW have not yet terminated and have been adjourned pending the determination of criminal proceedings against him .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The Medical Practitioners Act DATE established the ORG and provided for the establishment of the ORG . It is the ORG which decides whether it is necessary to hold an inquiry into the conduct of a registered medical practitioner . If the ORG is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so , it may apply to ORG for an order that the registration of any practitioner shall not have effect pending that inquiry . On completion of the inquiry , ORG reports to ORG . Where it is found that the practitioner has committed acts of professional misconduct or is unfit to engage in the practise of medicine by reason of an alleged physical or mental disability , the ORG may decide that that person ’s name be erased from the register , that his or her registration be suspended for a certain period of time or that certain conditions be attached to the retention in the register of that person .

In any of the above cases , the practitioner in question can apply to ORG to cancel the decision of the ORG and that court may either cancel the ORG ’s decision , direct the erasure or suspension of the practitioner ’s registration or attach such conditions to retention of the practitioner ’s name on the register as it thinks fit . In the absence of such an application by the practitioner , the ORG may apply to ORG for confirmation of its decision . In such circumstances , and unless it sees good reasons to the contrary , the High Court shall confirm the decision of ORG . A High Court hearing on such an application by a practitioner is conducted as an entire trial of the issues involved and is not a mere appeal from the combined decisions of ORG . The hearing , save in exceptional circumstances , is in public and the onus of proof lies on the ORG .

Accordingly , the ORG ’s findings have no legal effect on the practitioner ’s right to practice and the ORG ’s decision has no legal effect until confirmed by ORG , which court may cancel the decision of the ORG or vary it .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE - on - Don .

In DATE the applicant took part in the cleaning - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . He was subsequently granted Category CARDINAL disability status and became entitled to various social benefits . The subjects of the present case are the disputes concerning these benefits .

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before the ORG of PERSON - on - PERSON alleging a failure of the authorities to comply with the pension law . On DATE ORG upheld the complaint , noting the authorities ' unlawful inactivity .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant 's action against the authorities and awarded him DATE payments of MONEY ( RUB ) in compensation for health damage and as food allowance . ORG also awarded him a lump sum of RUB CARDINAL in outstanding compensation . The judgment was not appealed against and became final . The authorities did not pay the applicant the lump sum , and made the DATE payments only until DATE .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for re - examination to ORG .

The hearings were adjourned on DATE and on DATE due to the authorities ' failure to appear .

The next hearing was fixed for DATE when it was again postponed as the applicant had amended his claims .

On DATE the applicant lodged additional claims .

On DATE the court granted the authorities ' request for stay in the proceedings on the grounds that there were pending related proceedings in ORG of GPE and in LAW . The proceedings in ORG had been initiated by the applicant ( see para . CARDINAL below ) . The applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings , to no avail .

On DATE the case was reopened and assigned for hearing for DATE .

On DATE the authorities failed to appear and the proceedings were adjourned .

On DATE the ORG accepted the applicant 's claims in part . It ordered that ORG should pay him a lump sum of RUB CARDINAL in compensation for health damage , DATE payments of RUB CARDINAL and a lump sum of RUB CARDINAL in compensation for damage caused by a delay in the payment of DATE benefits . ORG also noted that the amount of DATE payments was to be index - linked in accordance with the law . The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on DATE .

NORP In DATE the authorities , as well as the applicant , requested reopening of the proceedings by way of supervisory review .

On DATE the Presidium of the Rostov ORG quashed the judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and sent the case for a fresh examination . The ORG held that the lower court had not calculated the sums of compensation and adjustment of DATE payments in accordance with the relevant law provisions , considering it as mistakes in implementation of substantive , as well as procedural , law .

On DATE the authorities failed to appear in court and the hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the applicant specified his claim .

On DATE the case was postponed as the authorities were not properly informed about the hearing .

On DATE the authorities failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the examination of the case was postponed as the judge was considering another case .

On DATE the case was adjourned because of default in appearance of the applicant .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's action in full . The applicant appealed . However , on DATE ORG adjourned the examination of the appeal because the applicant had only submitted a short version of his appeal statement . On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unlawful .

The applicant contested the accuracy of TIME of the hearing of DATE . On DATE the ORG dismissed the claim without consideration on the merits . The applicant appealed and on DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter for fresh consideration . On DATE the applicant 's claim concerning the minutes was dismissed on the merits .

On DATE the Rostov ORG , acting on appeal , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE the case was assigned to examination for DATE . On that date the applicant asked the court to request some documents from the defendant . The hearing was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE .

Upon the applicant 's requests the subsequent hearings were adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the case was adjourned due to the absence of a prosecutor .

On DATE the case was not tried again due to the applicant 's failure to appear .

On DATE ORG partly upheld the applicant 's action and awarded him a lump sum of RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in outstanding compensation for health damage , DATE payments of RUB CARDINAL in compensation for health damage and RUB CARDINAL in compensation for damage caused by a delay in payment of DATE sums . Thus , as compared with the quashed final judgment of DATE , the court awarded a lesser lump sum but higher DATE payments .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

As to the enforcement of the judgment , the DATE payments were made regularly and the lump sum was transferred to the applicant 's account by DATE .

On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE - on - PERSON granted the applicant 's request and quashed the judgment of DATE as upheld on DATE due to newly - discovered circumstances .

On DATE and on DATE the applicant unsuccessfully requested suspension of the proceedings as the same claims were considered by another court ( see para . CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the Proletarskiy District Court of GPE - on - PERSON discontinued the proceedings as the applicant failed to appear before the court and did not request the case to be tried in his absence .

In DATE the applicant lodged an action against ORG complaining that the lump sum awarded under the judgment of DATE had never been paid to him . He sought compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings because the President of ORG had lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of DATE .

The decision of DATE was quashed on appeal on DATE and the proceedings were resumed .

On DATE ORG disallowed the applicant 's action against the ORG . That decision was quashed on DATE and the action was sent to ORG for an examination on its merits .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's action on the ground that the judgment of DATE had been quashed by way of supervisory review on DATE and that on DATE the applicant had obtained another judgment in his favour . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against authorities demanding adjustment of his DATE payments .

On DATE ORG of Rostov - on - Don dismissed the applicant 's action . The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the case to be reopened due to newly discovered circumstances .

On DATE ORG granted the claim and quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

After the resumption of the proceedings the applicant amended his claims several times . Eventually he claimed damages for the delays in payments and failures to adjust them , making the claims similar to those considered in another case ( see para . CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant 's claims in part . It made the relevant adjustments and awarded the applicant compensation for the underpaid sums in the amount of RUB ORG , DATE payments of RUB MONEY and DATE payments of RUB MONEY .

The DATE payments were made without delay . As to the lump sum , it was received by the applicant in DATE .

In DATE the applicant lodged another action seeking adjustment of his DATE payments to take account of increases of the minimum DATE wage .

On DATE ORG upheld the action . That judgment was quashed on appeal on DATE and the case was remitted for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claims in full . On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment .

In DATE the authorities , by a unilateral decision , reduced the amount of DATE payments to the applicant . DATE he lodged an action against the authorities complaining about the reduction and seeking compensation for damage .

On DATE the ORG of ORG held that the authorities the applicant sued were not the proper respondent and disallowed the action against them . However , ORG ordered another authority , the local ORG , to join the proceedings as a respondent party and to resume payments of DATE sums to the applicant in accordance with the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the Rostov ORG , acting on appeal , upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the part concerning the disallowance but quashed the remaining part of the judgment and sent the matter for a fresh examination .

On DATE , as a result of the re - examination , ORG dismissed the applicant 's claims in full . The applicant did not appeal .

The applicant lodged an action before ORG asking for information to be disclosed about local judges who had not been provided with housing LOC in accordance with the law . By the final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the action , noting that the information was confidential .

In DATE the applicant unsuccessfully asked the authorities to provide him with information concerning the representation of their interests in courts . He complained about the refusal to a court .

On DATE ORG , in the final instance , dismissed the complaint , noting that the applicant 's rights and freedoms had not been infringed by the refusal .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings before ORG of GPE claiming unconstitutionality of some of the law provisions concerning payments for disability caused by the GPE nuclear disaster .

On DATE ORG found the provisions constitutional , thus rejecting the applicant 's claim . At the same time it noted that by these norms the ORG took an obligation to make the relevant payments within a specified period of time . It underlined , with the reference to the practice of ORG , that when an award is made by a final judgment , it should be enforced without delay .

The applicant , relying on the decision of DATE of ORG , asked ORG to review its final judgment of DATE due to newly discovered circumstances .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request . That decision became final on DATE when ORG upheld it on appeal .

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

The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in the material time is summed up in the ORG 's judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , NORP , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON and PERSON , § § ORG , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant , Mr Franciszek Gongor , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The applicant has been detained continuously since DATE .

On DATE he was committed to ORG , where he remained for DATE . On DATE he was transferred to FAC , where he was held until DATE . It appears that , subsequently , the applicant was transferred to ORG and ORG for medical treatment . From DATE until DATE the applicant was again held in FAC . On DATE he was transferred to ORG where he received dental treatment . On an unspecified date he was once more transferred to FAC .

On an unspecified date , presumably in DATE , the applicant was committed to FAC .

The applicant provided a detailed description of the conditions of his detention only in respect of FAC . He submitted , however , that the overall conditions in FAC , FAC and , more recently , ORG , were similar .

The applicant claimed that the cells in FAC were overcrowded and not ventilated . The opportunities for ensuring personal hygiene were scarce . There was a sink with cold water inside the cell . The toilet annex was insufficiently separated . As a result , there was a constant foul odour in the air . Even though a shower was allowed once DATE , most detainees did not have a chance to wash . The bathroom was equipped with CARDINAL shower cabins and it was used for TIME inmates at a time . As a result , only those who were placed high in the prison hierarchy got to take a shower . To make things worse , there were frequent water cuts . The water pressure was often too low or there was either only cold or hot water in the shower .

There was no social or cultural programme for detainees . The entertainment room was small and equipped with a broken ORG and a table to play tennis but no rackets . The detainees had no access to current newspapers and limited access to the law library .

The conditions described led to frustration and tension among the prisoners .

Furthermore , the applicant maintained that the quality of food offered to the detainees was substandard . The meals were always served cold and their main ingredient was canned meat , full of chemical preservatives . As a consequence , many detainees , including the applicant , suffered from digestive problems .

The applicant also submitted that the medical care provided within the penitentiary system was insufficient . It was very difficult to obtain an appointment with a doctor . In this respect the applicant submitted that he had had to wait DATE before he could be examined by an inhouse ophthalmologist , DATE before he could be admitted to ORG , and DATE before he could be examined by a doctor in FAC . Moreover , a general practitioner was present in the applicant ’s ward DATE .

In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG that he had been committed to FAC . He made a general statement that living conditions and medical care in that establishment were bad . He claimed that his cell was overcrowded , dirty and infested with bugs .

The Government essentially acknowledged that the applicant had been placed in overcrowded cells in ORG and in GPE and ORG . They submitted , however , that in FAC the applicant was detained in a cell in which the statutory minimum standard of CARDINAL m² per person was respected .

The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the penitentiary authorities about the medical care provided within the penitentiary system and about the overall conditions in ORG .

In a letter of DATE the Head of ORG stated that during the first period of the applicant ’s detention , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the population rate was PERCENT , whereas during DATE from DATE to DATE it peaked at PERCENT . He added that the current population level had reached PERCENT and was rising .

On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG GPE stated in his memorandum that the meals served to the detainees were of sufficient nutritional value and quality . Their temperature was measured at the time of distribution and was sustained thanks to the thermos containers used . The order of the cells in which the food was distributed was changed everyday .

On DATE the Head of ORG GPE submitted that at least twice DATE various sociocultural activities were proposed to the detainees . The entertainment room was equipped with a ORG , tennis table , and board games although the capacity of the room was limited to CARDINAL persons . Consequently , the CARDINAL detainees held in the ward could have access to it only on a rotation basis . Moreover , various national radio programmes were broadcast TIME via the prison radio station . The administration bought CARDINAL issues of a DATE newspaper to be distributed among all the wards .

In a memorandum of DATE ORG doctor stated that the applicant received systematic medical care . He was often examined by a general practitioner , as well as by specialists in urology , dermatology , neurology , ophthalmology , and psychiatry .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , acting as a penitentiary court , examined the applicant ’s complaint about the conditions in ORG , in particular overcrowding , lack of sociocultural activities , poor diet and overall conditions of detention . The court acknowledged the problem of overcrowding resulting from the rapid rise in the facility ’s population level . It was pointed out that the centre ’s administration had complied with the applicable domestic law and had made efforts to deal with the problem , for example by turning an entertainment room into cells . The court further noted that the cells were properly equipped and that the detainees were supplied with necessary hygiene products . The applicant ’s cell was ventilated and cleaned regularly . The meals served were of sufficient nutritional value and quality . The detainees had access to the library . They could subscribe to DATE newspapers or magazines . Finally , they could listen to the radio . The court held that the applicant ’s complaint was manifestly illfounded .

The applicant did not lodge similar complaints with the penitentiary authorities in connection with the more recent period of his detention and with the living conditions in the other prisons and remand centres .

The applicant filed a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of the living conditions in FAC .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s civil claim . The applicant did not appeal .

Moreover , the applicant did not bring a similar civil action in relation to the remaining period of his detention .

( See PERSON and CARDINAL other applications v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE . He is a military serviceman .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , sitting in GPE , in the final instance dismissed the applicant 's claims against his commanding officers .

On DATE ORG in the final instance allowed the applicant 's other claim . It made the following order :

“ The commanding officer of military unit no . DATE shall provide [ the applicant ] with data about the constitutive elements of his monetary allowance paid to him from DATE until DATE , as well as about reasons and grounds for him being deprived of bonus in DATE ” .

ORG judgment of DATE was final and immediately enforceable .

On DATE the bailiffs of ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) commenced the enforcement proceedings . They requested the commanding officer to enforce the judgment of DATE in the applicant 's favour voluntarily within DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the CARDINALth ORG ( “ the Garrison Court ” ) , sitting in LOC , allowed another claim lodged by the applicant . It ordered the commanding officer of the military unit no . DATE to provide the applicant with an DATE leave starting from DATE . The judgment of DATE was not appealed against and became final and enforceable on DATE .

On DATE the bailiffs of ORG commenced the enforcement proceedings . They requested the commanding officer to enforce the judgment of DATE in the applicant 's favour voluntarily within a DATE period . The judgment was enforced before DATE .

On DATE the commanding officer of the military unit no . DATE wrote to the applicant providing him with the relevant information , as he had been ordered to do by ORG judgment of DATE . The letter of CARDINAL DATE indicated that it was sent in compliance with the judgment of DATE . It was received by the applicant on DATE .

Domestic law and practice on execution of the judgments delivered against the ORG and its entities are summarised in PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL- ... ) .

The DATE legislation introducing a new domestic remedy in respect of an alleged violation of one 's right to enforcement of a judgment within reasonable time is summarised in GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE .

On DATE the Joint Plenary of ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE adopted a resolution interpreting the above - mentioned legislative provisions . It is reiterated in the resolution that the legislation in question is applicable only in respect of the monetary awards payable from the public funds pursuant to a contractual or legal provision ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON NORP and PERSON PERSON .

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE she instituted proceedings in ORG against Mr M. , seeking recovery of a debt and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The applicant submitted that on DATE Mr PERSON had borrowed USD MONEY from her , which he had undertaken to give back in DATE . In DATE the applicant asked him to return the money , but Mr PERSON refused .

In the course of the proceedings , Mr M. confirmed that he had received the money from the applicant . He however stated that the applicant had given him the money for the use in commercial transactions under the condition that he would pay her PERCENT of his DATE income . Mr PERSON further stated that by DATE he had given the full amount back to the applicant .

On DATE the court ruled in part for the applicant . It found that the parties had reached an oral agreement on the money loan , which was evidenced by their submissions before the court . The court also noted that in DATE Mr PERSON had made similar written submissions to the police , confirming that he had taken the money from the applicant for the use in his commercial transactions .

The court further found that the submissions of PERSON M. that he had paid back the money were unsubstantiated , as they were not supported by any documentary evidence .

It ordered Mr M. to pay the applicant the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL in the NORP national currency ( hryvnya ) . The court also awarded her ORG CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

Mr PERSON appealed , alleging that the first instance court had erred in establishing the facts of the case . In particular , he stated that , since the court had found that there had been a debt without having any documentary evidence before it , it should not have rejected his submissions that the debt had been paid in full .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) quashed the judgment of DATE . It held , referring to LAW of LAW of DATE , that PERSON PERSON should not have been required to provide documentary evidence to establish that he had fulfilled the obligation deriving from the contract which had been concluded orally . Such a requirement existed in respect of written contracts . Since the applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to demonstrate that there was an outstanding debt , which was contested by Mr M. , her claim for the recovery of that debt was rejected as unsubstantiated .

By the same judgment , the court of appeal ordered the applicant to pay the ORG the court fee of ORG MONEY .

The applicant appealed in cassation , alleging that the judgment of ORG was arbitrary . On DATE the panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal , finding that the judgment of the court of appeal was lawful .

On DATE ORG adopted a supplementary decision , by which it rejected the applicant ’s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated . The applicant did not appeal in cassation against that decision , as , according to her , it was not to be appealed under NORP law .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ [ The following ] should be concluded in writing :

CARDINAL ) NORP agreements between citizens concerning a sum of CARDINAL karbovantsiv [ ] ...

CARDINAL ) NORP other agreements between citizens which the law requires to be concluded in a written form ... ”

“ The parties shall have no right to refer to witnesses’ statements to prove the existence of a contract in case of a dispute , if that contract was not put in writing , which was required by the law[. In ] cases specifically mentioned in the law , [ the failure to observe the requirement of written form ] entails the nullity of a contract ... ”

“ Pursuant to a contract of loan , a party ( the lender ) gives [ a sum of ] money ... to another party ( the debtor ) , and the debtor undertakes to return the same sum of money ...

A contract of loan shall be considered as concluded at the time of the money transfer ...

“ A contract of loan for CARDINAL karbovantsiv shall be concluded in writing . ”

“ A debtor has a right to deny a contract of loan ... by proving that the money ... was not in fact received by him ... or that [ he ] received less money than mentioned in the contract .

If a contract of loan must be concluded in writing ( LAW ) , [ the parties ] are not allowed to deny [ that the money were transferred or received ] on the basis of ORG statements , except if the matter involves an act punishable under criminal law . ”

“ The court , who delivered a judgment [ in the case ] , may , upon an application of persons who take part in the case or upon its own motion , adopt a supplementary decision in [ the following ] cases :

CARDINAL ) NORP if any of the claims , concerning which the parties submitted evidence and observations , was not adjudicated ;

The question concerning [ possible ] adoption of a supplementary decision may be raised within DATE of the date of the judgment .

The court adopts a supplementary decision after the question was considered in a hearing to which the parties were summoned .

An appeal may be lodged against a supplementary decision within DATE following its adoption ... ”

The relevant extracts from paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG read as follows :

“ ... According to LAW of [ LAW ] the existence of legal relations , concerning which there is a requirement of written form ( LAW of [ LAW ] ) , may not be established on the basis of ORG statements .

At the same time , the fact that such a contract was executed can be established on the basis of any evidence ... , including ORG statements . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine under P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In the context of a real estate dispute , the applicant and her late husband brought an action before the Buda ORG apparently in DATE . The action concerned their claim to possess part of a disputed real estate and their request that the relevant land registry entry be rectified .

On DATE ORG gave a partial decision as to the boundaries of the disputed land . As regards the land registry entry , ORG ordered that this question be severed and dealt with by ORG .

On DATE the Pest County Regional Court suspended the appellate proceedings concerning the partial decision , pending the proceedings before ORG . The latter held hearings on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On that date it rejected part of the action and suspended the examination of another aspect of the case .

Meanwhile , the applicant and her late husband filed an application ( no . CARDINAL ) with ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) complaining in essence about the protraction of the proceedings . On DATE the application was declared partly admissible . On DATE ORG adopted its ORG under former LAW , observing that the parties had concluded a friendly settlement .

On DATE the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed their petition for review .

Following the subsequent adjudication of the question whose examination had been suspended on DATE in those proceedings ORG held a hearing on DATE and gave judgement on DATE – the proceedings resumed in their part suspended on DATE .

ORG held hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE it accepted the plaintiffs’ claims and ordered the land registry to restore the original situation . On DATE it rejected the ORG request for rectification .

In the resumed administrative proceedings , on DATE the ORG refused to restore the original situation , observing that this was impossible because of the physical and legal changes concerning the disputed land in the meantime .

On DATE the Pest County Land Registry dismissed the applicant ’s administrative appeal .

On DATE the applicant brought an action for judicial review . A first hearing was scheduled by ORG for DATE .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

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

The applicant was a shareholder of a private company . During the period of his absence , a general meeting of shareholders decided to sell the company ’s property . On DATE he brought proceedings before a court of general jurisdiction against CARDINAL private companies and CARDINAL individuals contesting the decision of the general meeting and seeking nullity of the sale .

On DATE the law on the entry into force of a new Code of Commercial Procedure was adopted . It expanded the jurisdiction of commercial courts and established that the cases pending before courts of general jurisdiction but falling into jurisdiction of commercial courts should be transferred to commercial courts within DATE , provided that the plaintiff consented . If the plaintiff did not agree to the transfer , the proceedings on the case were to be discontinued .

By decision of DATE , ORG of the GPE ( GPE Republic discontinued the proceedings on the applicant ’s claim . He appealed on the ground that ORG had not inquired whether he had consented , or not , to the transfer of the case . By decision of DATE , ORG of the GPE quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the first - instance court for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG held a new hearing . The applicant agreed to the transfer , the defendants objected claiming that the DATE time - limit established for the transfer had expired . ORG decided to transfer the case to ORG of GPE .

On DATE , on appeal by the defendants , ORG of the GPE quashed the decision of DATE and discontinued the proceedings on the ground that courts of general jurisdiction no longer had authority over the claim and that the time - limit for transfer had expired . The applicant was not present at the hearing as a summons had been dispatched by the court ’s registry on DATE , the following day after the hearing , and had reached him on DATE . The adversary party to the proceedings attended the hearing and made oral submissions .

The applicant lodged several requests for supervisory review proceedings . On DATE ORG of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to ORG of GPE for a fresh examination . It held in particular that the belated notification of the appeal hearing had deprived the applicant of an opportunity to argue his position in adversarial proceedings and , for that reason , had breached his right to a court .

On DATE ORG of GPE held a new appeal hearing that was attended by the applicant ’s representative . The appeal court upheld the decision of DATE by which the applicant ’s case was to be transferred to ORG of GPE for the examination on the merits .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG discontinued the examination of the applicant ’s case on the ground that on DATE one of the respondents , a private company , had become insolvent and that the applicant ’s claim could not be determined without that participant . It is unknown whether the applicant appealed against that decision .


CASE OF KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant company is the publisher of a newspaper ( GPE ) with its registered office in GPE .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as on CARDINAL and DATE May and DATE , the applicant company published , in its NORP regional edition ( PERSON ) , articles on the financial situation of a certain Mr PERSON who , at that time , was employed as a teacher and , at the same time , was a member of ORG ( PERSON ) and ORG . The articles commented on these professional tasks and , in harsh terms , alleged that he received CARDINAL salaries unlawfully as , according to NORP law , he was not entitled to a teacher ’s salary during his membership of ORG . He was , inter alia , referred to as someone unjustly enriching himself . These articles were accompanied by photographs of PERSON .

On DATE Mr PERSON applied for an injunction under LAW ) to ORG against the applicant company . He requested that the applicant company be ordered to refrain from publishing his picture in connection with statements describing him as somebody who received his salaries unlawfully and who benefited from unlawful privileges . Furthermore , he requested an order for the publication of the judgment in the applicant company ’s newspaper , indicating the grant of damages and the injunction ( einstweilige GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant company filed a statement of defence ( Klagebeantwortung ) in which it argued , inter alia , that the publication of the impugned articles had been justified under LAW .

On DATE ORG granted an interim injunction . It found the measure justified because the plaintiff ’s interest in prohibiting the publication of his photograph outweighed the applicant company ’s interest in the publication of the illustrated articles , in particular as the publication of the pictures per se had no special information value ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG granted the permanent injunction prohibiting the applicant company from publishing the plaintiff ’s picture in connection with the above mentioned or similar articles . It dismissed the remainder of the action . The court found that LAW prohibited publishing a person ’s picture if the publication violated that person ’s legitimate interests . When considering such interests , account had to be taken of whether the person concerned was known to the public , because the publication of the photographs of unknown persons made it possible to identify them later . The court found that PERSON face was not generally known , despite his membership of ORG . Therefore , his legitimate interests had been infringed by creating the possibility of identifying him . The applicant company was of course entitled to report on the plaintiff ’s activities and financial situation , but there was no legitimate interest in publishing his picture as it had , per se , no information value . Furthermore , it was irrelevant for this specific question whether the content of the articles was true or false .

On DATE the applicant company appealed . It argued that the court had erred when it found that the plaintiff ’s interests outweighed the applicant company ’s interests , as the public in GPE , who had elected PERSON , were interested in his sources of revenue . Therefore the court should have also taken evidence – as had been offered by the applicant company DATE in order to prove the truth of the articles . Furthermore , the plaintiff was known to the public as he was NORP and had participated in several events during the election campaign there . Thus it was incorrect that Mr PERSON ’s face was unknown .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal . It found that the publication of the pictures together with the articles had been unnecessary . In any case , the information value of the pictures could not outweigh Mr PERSON ’s interests . It also confirmed the legal opinion of ORG that , for the purposes of Section CARDINAL of LAW , it was irrelevant whether or not the publication contained true information .

On DATE ORG declared inadmissible the applicant company ’s extraordinary appeal on points of law ( außerordentlicher Revisionsrekurs ) . It confirmed the findings of ORG , observed that the publication of the plaintiff ’s pictures had no additional information value , and therefore concluded that it had been unnecessary . On DATE this decision was served upon counsel for the applicant company .

Section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Images of persons shall neither be exhibited publicly , nor in any way made accessible to the public , where injury would be caused to the legitimate interests of the persons concerned or , in the event that they have died without having authorised or ordered publication , those of a close relative . ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits namely ORG . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . The applicant appealed ; however , his appeal was stayed together with other appeals relating to the said benefit . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

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


CASE OF ANATOLIY VLADIMIROVICH ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a town in LOC .

NORP The applicant owned a flat in a decrepit house . The local council decided to demolish the house , and on DATE the applicant sued the council for a replacement flat .

On DATE ORG ordered the council to provide the applicant with a flat in Okha of the same quality as his demolished flat . This judgment became binding on DATE but was never enforced .

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


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , their Agent .

On DATE the applicant and his relatives claimed before ORG that several plots of land had been owned by his late father and belonged to his estate . In the course of the proceedings the plaintiffs specified the subject - matter of their action .

On DATE ORG ruled on part of the claims and decided to deal separately with the remainder of the action .

On DATE ORG invited an expert to submit an opinion and ordered the parties to pay an advance on the expert ’s costs .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision to the extent that it related to the expert ’s costs .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings and obtained further evidence .

Further evidence was obtained DATE . On DATE the case was assigned to a different judge .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the action . It held that the defendant company lacked standing in the proceedings as it did not possess the land in question .

The applicant appealed on DATE . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay the fees for the appellate proceedings .

On DATE the ORG quashed both the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant and the other plaintiffs re - stated the subject - matter of the action . They indicated a ORG - owned company and an administrative authority as defendants in the case .

On DATE the ORG refused to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee .

DATE the court obtained further evidence .

On DATE the case was adjourned .

On DATE ORG found that the CARDINAL plots of land in question belonged to the estate of the applicant ’s late father .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He claimed that ORG judgment did not cover CARDINAL other plots of land which his father had also owned . After having taken further procedural steps , ORG submitted the case to the court of appeal on DATE .

On DATE the ORG sent the case back to ORG with the instruction to decide on the outstanding claim within DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a supplementary judgment in which it dismissed the action to the extent that it concerned one of the CARDINAL defendants in the case . On DATE the applicant appealed . The file was submitted to ORG in Prešov on DATE .

On DATE ORG asked an administrative authority to submit documentary evidence to it . On DATE it ordered ORG to decide on the applicant ’s claim that several other plots of land also belonged to his father ’s estate . After complying with the instruction ORG was to return the file to the appellate court for further proceedings in the case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for the judgment of DATE to be completed to include CARDINAL different plots of land . That decision became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG in Prešov did not allow the applicant ’s request for amendment of the action and it dismissed his appeal against the first instance judgment of DATE as modified by the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG in GPE issued a decision in which it corrected an error in the operative part of its judgment of DATE .

In a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant of the ORG ’s practice requiring that applicants in a similar position should use the remedy under LAW available as from DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG , inter alia , about the length of the proceedings before ORG .

In a letter dated DATE a constitutional judge informed the applicant that his submission fell short of the formal requirements , thus preventing ORG from dealing with it .

In addition , the letter contained the following information :

“ To the extent that your submission concerns delays in proceedings before an ordinary court , it should be noted that ... LAW that a complaint must be filed against a current and continuing interference by public authorities with the plaintiff ’s fundamental rights . This view is based on the fact that a complaint [ to ORG ] plays an important preventive role , namely as an effective remedy preventing an interference with fundamental rights and , in cases where such an interference has occurred , its role is to put an end to a violation of such rights .

Therefore , in cases where it is obvious that no further delays can occur in proceedings at the moment when a complaint is filed with ORG ( even in cases where no final decision has been given ) , such a complaint can be rejected as being manifestly ill - founded . ”

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

Prior to DATE there was no “ effective remedy ” within the ORG meaning in GPE as regards this right ( see , mutatis mutandis , NORP v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE ) .

With effect from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , natural and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW . Under this provision , ORG has the power , in the event that it finds a violation of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay . It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional rights have been violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings ( for further details see , e.g. , ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ) .

It has been ORG practice to entertain complaints about excessive length of proceedings only where the proceedings complained of were pending at the moment when such complaints were lodged ( see , for example , decisions file nos . I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL or ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

In proceedings file number I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG examined an individual complaint under LAW of delays in enforcement proceedings concerning a minor ’s claim for maintenance . The enforcement commenced in DATE in GPE ORG and , from DATE , continued in GPE I ORG where it was still pending . In a judgment ( nález ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before both ORG and awarded the minor complainant non - pecuniary damages to be paid by both courts .

In proceedings file number I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG examined a complaint by an individual under LAW of delays in proceedings in his civil action of DATE . The action was partially granted at first instance in DATE . That judgment was however quashed on appeal in DATE and the matter was remitted to the first instance court where it was still pending . In a judgment of DATE ORG found that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before the first instance court and awarded the complainant non - pecuniary damages . ORG also examined the phase of the proceedings before the court of appeal but found no unjustified delays . A similar approach was adopted in proceedings number ORG .

In proceedings file number III . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG examined a complaint by an individual under LAW of delays in proceedings in a civil action against him . The action was lodged in DATE with ORG which , shortly after , transferred it to a ORG for reasons of jurisdiction . The action was then pending before ORG until DATE when ORG ruled that it should be determined at first instance by ORG . The action was eventually withdrawn and the proceedings were consequently discontinued by a final decision of DATE . In a judgment of DATE ORG found that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings both before ORG and ORG . The complainant was awarded non - pecuniary damage to be paid by both courts .

In proceedings file number PERSON . ÚS PERSON ( decision of DATE ) , ORG took a different approach . The plaintiff complained to ORG , inter alia , about the length of proceedings concerning her maintenance . The action was originally filed with the PERSON ORG in DATE . The question arose whether the first instance and the second instance court judges were impartial . On DATE ORG decided that the question of impartiality of the judges at the first instance would be determined by ORG . The latter decided on DATE that the action would be examined at first instance by ORG which determined it on DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the first instance judgment . In her complaint to ORG of DATE the plaintiff alleged that the ordinary courts had violated her right to a hearing without undue delay . ORG declared this complaint manifestly ill - founded . The decision stated that , insofar as the complaint related to the part of the proceedings leading to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , it had been filed out of time since , at the moment of the introduction of the constitutional complaint , the relevant part of the proceedings was no longer pending . For similar reason ORG rejected the complaint in respect of the subsequent proceedings before ORG which had ended on DATE . As to the appellate proceedings before ORG , ORG noted that they had lasted DATE and found that this period was not excessive .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Elisabeth Steiner;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

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

She is a widow of a military officer . She sued the military commissariats of GPE and GPE for recalculation of her pension on account of the increase of the monetary compensation paid in respect of a food allowance .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth ORG granted her claim and ordered the military commissariat of GPE to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in pension arrears , as well as to readjust future payments in line with the increase of the food allowance . The claim against the commissariat of GPE was dismissed .

The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force . It has not been executed .

According to the Government , at some point the military prosecutor ’s office started an inquiry into lawfulness of several sets of court proceedings concerning military pension arrears throughout the GPE region .

On DATE the defendant lodged a request for supervisory review of the case .

On DATE the Presidium of the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment on the ground of a violation of substantive law and remitted the case to the President of ORG for the transfer to a different court for a fresh examination . The ORG found , in particular , that the Justice of the Peace incorrectly calculated the amount of the food allowance , having thus misinterpreted the material law .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth Court Circuit of Novocherkassk discontinued the proceedings on the ground of the applicant ’s repeated failure to appear . The applicant did not appeal against the decision , and it entered into force .

According to the Government , at some point several unspecified military officials of GPE had been charged with and convicted of negligent attitude to duties which had caused damage to ORG ) . The Government did not provide any documents or further details in this respect .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Üröm . He is represented before the ORG by Ms Sz . ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by Mr PERSON , Agent , ORG and Law Enforcement .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on the charge of having stolen a car . He was in pre - trial detention until DATE .

On DATE a bill of indictment was preferred . The applicant was charged with having trafficked in stolen goods .

After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts , on DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , the execution being suspended for DATE .

On appeal , on DATE the Pest County Regional Court re - characterised the applicant ’s offence as complicity , an offence punishable with up to DATE imprisonment . The court appreciated the long time which had elapsed since the commission of the offence as an important mitigating factor and decided to dispense with imposing a punishment . Instead , it formally reprimanded the applicant .


Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants are CARDINAL female NORP nationals of GPE ethnic origin .

The applicants were treated at gynaecological and obstetrics departments in CARDINAL hospitals in eastern GPE during their pregnancies and deliveries . Despite continuing to attempt to conceive , none of the applicants has become pregnant since their last stay in hospital , when they delivered via caesarean section . The applicants suspected that the reason for their infertility might be that a sterilisation procedure was performed on them during their caesarean delivery by medical personnel in the hospitals concerned . Several applicants had been asked to sign documents prior to their delivery or on discharge from the hospital but they were not sure of the content of those documents .

The applicants , together with several other GPE women , granted powers of attorney to lawyers from ORG , a non - governmental organisation based in ORG . The lawyers were authorised to review and photocopy the women ’s medical records in order to obtain a medical analysis of the reasons for their infertility and possible treatment . The applicants also authorised the lawyers to make photocopies of their complete medical records as potential evidence in future civil proceedings for damages , and to ensure that such documents and evidence were not destroyed or lost . The photocopies were to be made by the lawyers with a portable photocopier at the expense of ORG .

The applicants attempted to obtain access to their medical records in the respective hospitals through their authorised representative in DATE and DATE . The lawyer unsuccessfully asked the management of the hospitals to allow her to consult and photocopy the medical records of the persons who had authorised her to do so .

On DATE representatives of ORG expressed the view that section ORG ) of the Health Care Act DATE did not permit a patient to authorise another person to consult his or her medical records . The above provision was to be interpreted in a restrictive manner and the term “ legal representative ” concerned exclusively the parents of an underage child or a guardian appointed to represent a person who had been deprived of legal capacity or whose legal capacity had been restricted .

The applicants sued the hospitals concerned . They claimed that the defendants should be ordered to release their medical records to their authorised legal representative and to allow them to obtain a photocopy of the documents included in the records .

CARDINAL applicants brought an action against ORG nemocnica PERSON ) in Prešov ( “ the ORG ” ) on DATE .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment ordering the hospital to permit the plaintiffs and their authorised representative to consult their medical records and to make handwritten excerpts thereof . The relevant part of the judgment became final on DATE and enforceable on DATE .

With reference to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Health Care Act DATE ORG dismissed the request to photocopy the medical documents . The court noted that the records were owned by the medical institutions concerned and that such a restriction was justified with a view to preventing their abuse . It was not contrary to the plaintiffs’ rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW . The applicants appealed against that part of the judgment .

On DATE ORG in Prešov upheld the first - instance decision , according to which the applicants were not entitled to make photocopies of their medical files . There was no indication that the applicants’ right to have any future claim for damages determined in accordance with the requirements of LAW had been jeopardised . In particular , under the relevant law the medical institutions were obliged to submit the required information to , inter alia , the courts , for example in the context of civil proceedings concerning a patient ’s claim for damages .

GPE and GPE , the CARDINAL remaining applicants , brought an identical action against ORG ( GPE s poliklinikou ) in PERSON ( “ the GPE ” ) on DATE .

On DATE ORG in GPE ordered the defendant to allow the ORG representative to consult their medical records and to make excerpts thereof . It dismissed the claim concerning the photocopying of the medical documents . The court referred to section FAC ) of the Health Care Act DATE and noted that even courts or other authorities were not entitled to receive photocopies of medical records . Such a restriction was necessary in order to prevent abuse of personal data contained therein .

The applicants appealed against the decision concerning the photocopying of the documents . They relied on Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW and argued that , unlike public authorities and the medical institutions concerned , they had only limited access to their medical records , which meant that they were restricted in assessing the position in their cases and in bringing an appropriate action for damages .

On DATE ORG in PERSON upheld the first - instance decision to reject the claim concerning the photocopying of the medical records .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicants who had sued the ORG lodged a complaint under LAW . They alleged that ORG , ORG and ORG in Prešov had violated , inter alia , their rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .

As regards LAW the applicants argued that , in practice , handwritten excerpts from medical records could be abused just as photocopies of the relevant documents could . However , preventing the applicants from making photocopies of those documents put them at a disadvantage vis - à - vis the ORG , to which the medical institutions concerned were subordinated and which would act as defendant in proceedings concerning any future claim for damages . Furthermore , the principle of equality of arms required that the applicants should have at their disposal all the documentation in the form of photocopies . This would enable an independent expert , possibly abroad , to examine them , and also provide a safeguard in the event of the possible destruction of the originals .

Under LAW the applicants complained that they had been denied full access to documents pertinent to their private and family lives in that they had been refused the right to make photocopies of them .

On DATE ORG ) rejected the complaint . It found no appearance of a violation of LAW in the proceedings leading to ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . As to the alleged violation of LAW , ORG held that ORG had correctly applied section ORG ) of LAW of DATE and that a fair balance had been struck between the conflicting interests . Reference was made to the explanatory report to that LAW Furthermore , LAW did not encompass a right to make photocopies of medical documents .

On DATE the remaining CARDINAL applicants lodged a similar complaint under LAW alleging a violation of , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG as a result of the conduct of the representatives of ORG and in the proceedings leading to ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Second Chamber ) rejected the complaint as being premature . The decision stated that the plaintiffs had lodged an appeal on points of law against the part of ORG judgment by which the first - instance decision to grant their claim for access to medical records had been overturned .

Subsequently CARDINAL applicants were able to access their files and to make photocopies thereof under the newly introduced LAW CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in circumstances which are set out in the decision on the admissibility of the present application .

As regards the eighth applicant , PERSON , the ORG only provided her with a simple record of a surgical procedure indicating that surgery had been performed on her and that she had been sterilised during the procedure . On DATE the Director of the ORG informed the applicant that her complete medical file had not been located and that it was considered lost . On DATE ORG admitted that ORG had violated LAW in that it had failed to ensure the proper keeping of the medical file of PERSON

Article CARDINAL guarantees to everyone the right to seek judicial protection of a right which has been placed in jeopardy or violated .

Under LAW , courts shall proceed with a case in cooperation with the parties in a manner permitting the speedy and efficient protection of ORG rights .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that , prior to starting proceedings on the merits , courts can secure evidence on the proposal of the person concerned where it is feared that it will be impossible to take such evidence later .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL obliges a plaintiff to submit the documentary evidence relied upon in an action , with the exception of evidence which the plaintiff is unable to submit for external reasons .

Pursuant to LAW , parties are obliged to produce evidence in support of their arguments . The decision as to which evidence will be taken lies with the court . GPE , courts can take other evidence than that proposed by the parties where it is necessary for the determination of the point in issue .

Until DATE , the following provisions of LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( Zákon o zdravotnej starostlivosti – “ LAW DATE ” ) were in force :

“ Section DATE Medical records

The keeping of medical records shall form an inseparable part of health care .

All medical institutions ... shall be obliged to keep medical records in written form ... The documents are to be dated , signed by the person who established them , stamped and numbered on each page ...

Medical records shall be archived for DATE after the patient ’s death . ...

A medical institution shall be obliged to provide medical records on a specific written request and free of charge , to a public prosecutor , investigator , police authority or court in the form of excerpts , to the extent that they are relevant in the context of criminal or civil proceedings . The medical records as a whole can not be put at the disposal of the above authorities .

A patient , his or her legal representative ... shall have the right to consult medical records and to make excerpts thereof at the place [ where the records are kept ] ...

A medical institution shall provide an expert appointed by a court with information from medical records to the extent that it is necessary for preparing an expert opinion ...

An excerpt from a person ’s medical record ... shall contain exact and true data and give an overview of the development of the health of the person concerned up to the date when the excerpt is established . It shall be established in writing on numbered pages . ”

The relevant part of ORG to LAW DATE reads as follows :

“ Medical records remain the property of the medical institution concerned . They contain data about the patient and often also about the members of his or her family or other persons . That information being of a strictly confidential and intimate nature , the obligation of non - disclosure extends to them in their entirety . It is therefore necessary to define as precisely as possible cases where a patient or other persons may acquaint themselves with such information . ”

Law no . CARDINAL on health care and health care services and on the amendment and completion of certain Acts ( PERSON o zdravotnej starostlivosti , službách súvisiacich s poskytovaním zdravotnej starostlivosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov – “ LAW CARDINAL ” ) came into force on DATE and became operative on DATE . It repealed , inter alia , section CARDINAL of LAW DATE . Its relevant provisions read as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL – Access to data included in medical records

ORG included in medical records shall be made available by means of consultation of the medical records to :

( a ) NORP the person concerned or his or her legal representative , without any restriction ; ...

( c ) any person authorised in writing by the person mentioned in point ( a ) ... subject to the signature of the latter being certified in accordance with a special law ... to the extent that it is specified in the authorisation ; ...

( g ) an expert appointed by a court or an authority in charge of a criminal case or whom one of the parties has asked for an opinion ... ; the extent of data necessary for preparing the opinion shall be determined by the expert ...

The persons entitled to consult medical records shall have the right to make excerpts or copies of them at the place where the records are kept to the extent indicated in paragraph CARDINAL . ”

Point CARDINAL of the Recommendation adopted on CARDINAL DATE deals with the rights of persons whose medical data have been collected . The relevant part provides :

“ Rights of access and of rectification

Every person shall be enabled to have access to his / her medical data , either directly or through a health - care professional or , if permitted by domestic law , a person appointed by him / her . The information must be accessible in understandable form .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL Access to medical data may be refused , limited or delayed only if the law provides for this and if :

a. this constitutes a necessary measure in a NORP society in the interests of protecting state security , public safety , or the suppression of criminal offences ; ... ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , first PERSON , and then PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicants’ DATE son , PERSON , and a friend of his , PERSON , entered a building housing an electric power transformer in the vicinity of their village . PERSON left the building first and immediately afterwards heard a blast . On looking inside , he saw PERSON sprawled on the ground ; he appeared to have been struck by high - voltage electricity . PERSON ran off and returned with the second applicant , GPE ’s father . At this point an ambulance arrived and took the boy to hospital . DATE GPE died .

The electric power transformer was situated close to a road and to an animal feed factory owned by a company , M. Until DATE it had served the needs of the factory ; however , due to repeated thefts of equipment , in DATE the company ceased using it and had abandoned it . Even though the company had dismantled the rest of the equipment , a feeder cable of QUANTITY which served other plants and factories in the area had remained in use .

Criminal proceedings were opened on DATE against an unknown perpetrator for negligently causing the death of PERSON by the careless performance of a dangerous activity .

An inspection of the site of the incident was carried out on DATE . It was established that the building had a low - voltage and a high - voltage chambers , accessible through separate doors . The main door leading to the high - voltage chamber was closed and locked ; there was a warning sign on it . However , the door leading to the low - voltage chamber was missing and there was a hole in one of the chamber ’s brick walls measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . It was through that hole that GPE PERSON and PERSON had entered the high - voltage chamber .

A post - mortem examination of GPE ’s body was carried out on DATE . It found burns and other traces of electric shock and established that the immediate cause of death was severe cerebrocranial trauma , which could have been caused by DATE to the ground after an electric shock .

Numerous witnesses were interviewed in the course of the criminal proceedings . Among them were several neighbours who had been nearby at the time of the incident , some of whom had seen the CARDINAL boys enter the building housing the transformer and PERSON exit in a hurry . They had approached the scene , found GPE lying in a pool of blood and called an ambulance .

Several witnesses said that the door leading to the low - voltage chamber had been missing for DATE prior to CARDINAL DATE . They had also seen the hole in the wall of the high - voltage chamber . They had assumed that the transformer was not functioning .

NORP In fact , the electricity supply to the transformer was cut , following a request by company PERSON addressed to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , on DATE , DATE after the incident involving the applicants’ son .

NORP In CARDINAL letters dated DATE and DATE , the PERSON informed the investigation authorities that the transformer at issue was not its property , but the property of company PERSON employees , when interviewed as witnesses , made statements to the same effect .

The investigators collected documentary evidence concerning the nature of the duties of a number of employees at company LOC tasked with the maintenance of its electrical installations . It was established that after DATE the plant ’s department responsible for the maintenance of its electric installations had been headed by a Mr V.P. ; he was interviewed , as were several other employees of M.

An expert report commissioned by the investigation authorities detailed numerous breaches of the relevant safety rules at the factory , such as a lack of regular checks of the installations . It has not been established whether the factory ’s installations had ever been inspected by the relevant ORG bodies . The report found also that Mr GPE , head of the department responsible for the maintenance of the company ’s electric installations , had not had the professional qualifications required by law .

The investigators worked on the case until DATE , after which they took no further investigative action and the case remained dormant .

Until DATE the applicants were active in the proceedings , filing requests and complaints . In DATE , following a request by the second applicant , a new investigator was appointed to deal with the case , as the previous one had died . It appears that after the appointment of the new investigator the applicants took no further initiative and remained passive .

On DATE a prosecutor at the GPE regional public prosecutor ’s office discontinued the criminal proceedings as the statutory limitation period had expired . In a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s decision .

The applicants have not sought damages from company LOC in respect of their son ’s death .

LAW of DATE , in force until DATE , provided in section CARDINAL that all electricity power stations , electrical installations and networks belonged to the ORG . Cooperatives and other organisations could acquire such electrical facilities following an authorisation by ORG ( “ FAC ” ) .

By section CARDINAL of the same LAW and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW on its implementation ( “ the LAW ” ) , in force until DATE , the good technical repair of electrical installations and equipment was supervised by ORG . Such supervision could also be exercised by the electricity - supply organisations ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Regulations ) or by other bodies and organisations in the field of their competency ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .

The supervising bodies of ORG had the right ( “ имат право ” ) to carry out inspections and issue binding instructions to the users of electrical installations and equipment ( section CARDINAL of the Regulations ) . In cases of shortcomings or failures in electrical installations which could endanger the lives of personnel or the proper functioning of the whole electrical system , the supervising bodies were to take preventive measures and , if necessary , switch off the installation in question ( section CARDINAL of the Regulations ) .

By section CARDINAL of the Act , administrative bodies and other organisations had to ensure the good technical repair and the safety of the electrical installations which they used .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Regulations provided that the owners and the users of electrical installations and networks were liable for any damage caused by bad technical repair and inadequate safety ; paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL specified that the electricity - supply organisations would not be liable for damage caused by the bad technical repair of consumers’ electrical installations and networks .

The Regulations on the state of electrical installations , in force until DATE , provided in section I-CARDINAL - CARDINAL that electrical installations , including electric power transformers and buildings housing them , had to be located so as to prevent unauthorised access , with locked doors and warning signs in place . High voltage areas of electric installations had to be isolated to avoid accidental access or contact ( section I-CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL of that Decree provide for periodic checks of electrical installations and networks , which is to be carried out by bodies appointed by ORG . The same bodies are required to investigate grave incidents and serious breaches of the safety regulations .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides that an individual who has negligently caused the death of another , through lack of knowledge or the careless exercise of a profession or a dangerous activity regulated by law , is to be punished by a term of imprisonment of DATE .

Under NORP law , tort liability is provided for in LAW of DATE . In particular , section CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that the owner of and the person supervising an object are jointly liable for any damage caused by that object . In its constant practice ORG has held that liability under section CARDINAL does not require proof of “ fault ” and covers damages caused by “ objectively existing properties , qualities or defects of the object ” ( see , for example , judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .