The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mrs I. Jansone , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

In DATE the applicant , together with CARDINAL other individuals and a legal entity , set up a limited - liability company named ORG ( “ the company ” ) , which was entered immediately in the companies register ( ORG reģistrs ) . The new company ’s base capital amounted to CARDINAL lati ( ORG ) , comprising CARDINAL shares worth ORG each . The applicant held CARDINAL shares , making him the majority shareholder . In DATE the applicant used his shares as security for a loan from a commercial bank in GPE , but continued to own them .

On DATE a general meeting of company members decided to wind up the company . On DATE a winding - up petition was lodged with ORG , which examined it at a hearing on DATE . Despite the explanations of the company ’s representatives to the effect that the company ’s financial situation had improved in the meantime , with the result that it was now able to honour its debts , the court declared the company insolvent , placed it in compulsory liquidation and appointed a liquidator ( administrators ) , ORG In addition , the court appointed the company ’s Chairman , GPE , its Chief Executive , ORG , and its accountant , ORG , as the debtor ’s representatives ( parādnieka pārstāvji ) . ORG judgment of DATE was final .

In DATE a LOC meeting adopted a recovery plan ( sanācijas plāns ) for the company , based in particular on a very substantial increase in its share capital . However , by an order of DATE , ORG refused to ratify the plan .

Notwithstanding this refusal , ORG forwarded amendments to the company ’s memorandum and articles of association for entry in the companies register . The amendments were entered straight away . On an application by the applicant dated DATE , ORG ( galvenais valsts notārs ) cancelled the registration of the amendments in question . According to ORG , the liquidator had acted in bad faith , as he had had no right to amend the company ’s memorandum and articles of association when the recovery plan had not been ratified by the courts . ORG also observed that the increase in the company ’s share capital envisaged by ORG would interfere with the applicant ’s right of pre - emption over the new shares .

On DATE a NORP meeting again approved the increase in the company ’s share capital and the amendments to its memorandum and articles of association .

In DATE the applicant ’s CARDINAL individual associates concluded a deed of gift with a third party , PERSON , under which they transferred all their shares to him . PERSON thus became the majority shareholder , with CARDINAL shares . The applicant continued to own CARDINAL shares and CARDINAL shares were held by the legal entity which had been CARDINAL of the company ’s founders .

On DATE and DATE the company ’s creditors met and adopted a new recovery plan . Under the terms of the plan , PERSON was to increase the company ’s share capital to ORG within DATE . The funds required for the purpose were to come from the public limited company GPE , of which PERSON was Chairman and Chief Executive . By a final order of DATE , ORG ratified the new plan .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant , represented by the bank to which he had pledged his shares as security , lodged an application with ORG challenging the decisions of the company ’s creditors and the actions of the liquidator . In his memorial he submitted a series of complaints concerning the conduct of the insolvency procedure . Firstly , he contended that ORG did not have the right to increase the company ’s share capital and that the creditors had no right to approve the unlawful decisions taken by the liquidator . Secondly , he criticised the final version of the recovery plan . In his view , the text contained a number of shortcomings and irregularities which made it incompatible with the legislation on company insolvency . He argued , for instance , that the plan did not set out in sufficient detail the recovery measures and the deadlines for their implementation ; the debt repayment schedule was unfair as it gave small creditors an advantage ; the overall recovery period exceeded the statutory maximum period of DATE ; and the PERSON meeting had not had all the documents it needed in order to take an equitable decision . Thirdly , in the applicant ’s view , ORG ’s conduct demonstrated that he was incompetent and had acted in bad faith , and he should be dismissed as liquidator . Accordingly , the applicant requested the court to declare all the decisions taken by ORG and the creditors null and void , to refuse to ratify the recovery plan and to dismiss ORG

By an order of DATE , the relevant judge of ORG declared the applicant ’s application inadmissible . The order stated that no legislation conferred on ordinary shareholders a right of appeal against decisions taken by the liquidator or by meetings of the creditors of a company in liquidation . In that connection the judge pointed out that only the official representatives of the debtor company could participate in the insolvency proceedings and that the applicant was not one of the CARDINAL representatives appointed under the judgment of DATE . Finally , the judge found that the applicant was not entitled to request the dismissal of the liquidator ; such a request could be made only by a meeting of the creditors .

This order was served on the bank , as the applicant ’s representative , but not on the applicant himself . Consequently , he did not receive a copy until DATE . On DATE he challenged the order by means of an appeal to ORG of ORG . At the same time he requested ORG to extend the time allowed for lodging an appeal against the order in question , explaining that he had received a copy of the order on DATE of the DATE period laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW and had therefore been unable to lodge his appeal within the time allowed .

On DATE the relevant judge of ORG transmitted the appeal to ORG without giving a formal ruling on the extension of the time allowed . The judge simply noted that “ the appeal [ had been ] lodged within the period set down by section CARDINAL of LAW and [ was ] to be forwarded ” to the recipient .

By a final order of DATE , the relevant judge of ORG declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that it had been lodged out of time and that the first - instance judge had not extended the period specified in section CARDINAL of LAW .

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the ORG of ORG , which dismissed it by a final order of DATE . In the ORG ’s view , the fact that the first - instance judge had omitted to rule on the extension of the time allowed for lodging an appeal did not alter the finding that the appeal had been lodged out of time ; the appeal court had therefore been right not to examine it .

Insolvency proceedings are governed by LAW of DATE ( NORP “ ORG uzņēmumu un uzņēmējsabiedrību maksātnespēju ” ) . In accordance with the LAW , the chief players in insolvency proceedings are the liquidator , the company ’s representatives , the LOC meetings and , where appropriate , the PERSON committee . As a rule , a meeting of creditors includes all the creditors of the company in liquidation ; any person with a claim against the company has the right to attend ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The liquidator is appointed by the relevant court ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . At the material time the debtor company ’s representatives were usually appointed by the liquidator ( section DATE ) , but could also be appointed or approved by the court . They are now appointed by the court in all cases .

Once a company has been declared insolvent , it loses the right to dispose of its assets , that right being transferred to the liquidator . Similarly , the bodies responsible for administering and managing the company are suspended and their powers transferred to the liquidator ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The latter must report to a meeting of creditors , which can request his dismissal ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The procedure for dismissal is laid down in CARDINAL : if the PERSON meeting considers that the liquidator no longer fulfils the statutory requirements , is incompetent or is acting in bad faith , it must pass a vote of no confidence in him . It must then request the relevant court to dismiss the liquidator and replace him .

At the relevant time a LOC meeting could challenge the decisions of the liquidator before the courts , on condition that it had first made an application to the liquidator himself . This option was also available to the debtor company and to individual creditors . The latter had first to apply to the liquidator ; if their application was rejected , explicitly or implicitly , they had to propose legal action to a PERSON meeting . If the meeting rejected the proposal , they could then institute legal proceedings themselves ( section GPE ) ) .

A company recovery plan adopted by a LOC meeting may be challenged before the courts by the liquidator , a single creditor or a group of creditors ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG insolvency proceedings are governed by LAW of LAW ( ORG likums ) . At the material time the relevant provisions of this LAW were identical in substance to those of LAW . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) stated that the liquidator had the right to appeal against any decisions taken by a meeting of creditors .


CASE OF IGARIENE AND PETRAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

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

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

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

On DATE the ORG restored the applicants’ property rights to part of a building in GPE . In particular , it restored in kind the applicants’ property rights to the flats in which they lived . The property restitution decision specified that the property rights to the uninhabited part of the building ( hereafter “ the disputed LOC ” ) would be restored in accordance with the procedure and terms fixed by the Government .

On DATE the GPE deputy mayor and the applicants signed a statement of transfer acceptance ( priėmimo - perdavimo aktas ) , by which the disputed LOC were transferred to the applicants . On DATE the applicants registered their title to the LOC .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the GPE mayor declared the statement of transfer acceptance unlawful and consequently null and void . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG supplemented the decision of CARDINAL DATE with a clause which specified the form in which the property rights were to be restored . Therein it was decided to pay compensation for the disputed LOC , at that time occupied by a pharmacy , after the Government had determined the means and the procedure by which compensation was to be paid .

By a decision of DATE , ORG transferred the disputed LOC from the balance sheet of CARDINAL ORG - run company to the balance sheet of the ORG - run company of GPE area pharmacies . Subsequently , by a decision of ORG of DATE , the disputed LOC were transferred into the private ownership of the closed - stock company , Šlamučio vaistinė .

On DATE the applicants , together with other persons in a similar situation , brought a civil claim , challenging the local authorities’ decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . It was dismissed as unsubstantiated by GPE on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the lower court ’s decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination . ORG noted that the lower court had not examined all the relevant circumstances . In particular , it had not taken account of the fact that , at the time of the adoption of the impugned decisions , the applicants had already been recognised as the owners of the entire building . ORG observed that only a court and not a local authority could have annulled the applicants’ ownership rights .

On DATE GPE decided to suspend the civil proceedings further to a request by V.A. , one of the plaintiffs in the case , on account of the illness of one of his relatives , who also was a plaintiff in that case . The court ordered V.A. to inform it when his relative ’s state of health would allow her to participate in the proceedings .

On DATE the Kaunas City District Court of its own motion resumed the civil proceedings .

On DATE the Kaunas City District Court granted the applicants’ claim . It declared the local authority ’s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE null and void , restoring the ORG title to the premises occupied by the pharmacy .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG quashed the lower courts’ decisions and returned the case to GPE for an examination de novo . ORG considered that the lower courts had again failed to assess all the relevant circumstances – even those to which attention had been drawn in its decision of CARDINAL DATE and that they had erred in law .

On DATE the Kaunas ORG dismissed the applicants’ action . The court observed that the law had not provided for restitution in kind of immovable property if it had been occupied by public - interest institutions , such as a pharmacy . The court further interpreted the decision of CARDINAL DATE , noting that it could not have been read as guaranteeing restitution in kind of the entire building , but only of the unoccupied part . The court annulled the ambiguous phrasing of the decision , leaving it to the local authorities to determine how to remedy the situation , either by pecuniary compensation or by the transfer of an equivalent property .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicants .

On DATE certain parties to the case , including the applicants , submitted a request to GPE to interpret its decision of DATE . Their request was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE V.A. instituted civil proceedings challenging the initial proportions of the applicants’ and other interested parties’ property rights , as set in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE GPE left ORG request unexamined because V.A. , although having been duly informed about the hearing , failed to appear in court .

On DATE the head of GPE issued an order to pay the applicants pecuniary compensation for the disputed LOC . The compensation was to be paid in CARDINAL instalments and on DATE the applicants received the first payment due . The CARDINAL remaining instalments are to be paid in DATE and DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the domestic remedies with regard to length of proceedings complaints have been summarised in the judgment of ORG and Others v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . In addition , LAW , in force until DATE , provided that an organisation was to compensate for any damage which its employees had caused while performing their professional duties .

The PERSON on the procedure and conditions for thr restoration of ownership rights to existing real property ( FAC dėl piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atstatymo tvarkos ir sąlygų ) , enacted on DATE and amended on numerous occasions , provided for CARDINAL forms of restitution – the return of the property in kind or compensation for it if its physical return was not possible . Pursuant to LAW , if a house had been converted into non - residential LOC which had been given to a medical institution or used for medical purposes , those LOC were to be bought out by the ORG . The local authorities were competent to decide on the method of compensation .

On DATE ORG examined the issue of the compatibility of the LAW with the domestic laws on the restoration of property rights . In its decision ORG held , inter alia , that possessions which had been nationalised by the NORP authorities since DATE should be treated as “ property under the de facto control of the ORG ” . ORG stated :

“ The rights of a former owner to particular property have not been restored until the property is returned or appropriate compensation is afforded . The law does not itself provide any rights while it is not applied to a concrete person in respect of a specific property . In such a situation the legal effect of a decision by a competent authority to return the property or to provide compensation is such that only from that moment does the former owner obtain property rights to a specific property . ”

ORG also held that fair compensation for property which could not be returned in kind was compatible with the principle of the protection of property .

On DATE ORG affirmed that the choice by ORG of the partial reparation principle was influenced by the difficult political and social conditions , in that “ new generations had grown , new proprietary and other socio - economic relations had been formed during DATE of occupation , which could not be ignored in deciding the question of restitution of property ” .

The PERSON on the restoration of ORG ownership rights to existing real property ( PERSON nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas ) , which was enacted on DATE and which repealed the PERSON on the procedure and conditions for the restoration of ownership rights to existing real property , at the material time read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Ownership rights to residential houses , portions thereof and flats shall be restored to persons specified in DATE PERSON by returning them in kind , except for residential houses , portions thereof and flats which are subject to a ORG buyout pursuant to LAW ... ”

“ Residential houses , portions thereof and flats shall be bought out by the ORG from the citizens specified in LAW , who shall be compensated in accordance with LAW , provided that such residential houses , portions thereof or flats :

( CARDINAL ) have been converted into LOC unfit for human occupancy and used for educational , health care protection , cultural or scientific purposes , or by communal care residences . The list of such LOC shall be approved by the Government ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The ORG shall compensate citizens for existing real property which is bought out by the ORG , as well as for real property which existed prior to CARDINAL DATE but subsequently ceased to exist as a result of decisions adopted by the ORG or local authorities .

When the ORG compensates citizens for real property which , in accordance with this PERSON , is not returned in kind , the principle of equal value shall be applied to both the property that is not returned and other property which is transferred instead of it as compensation for the property bought out by the ORG . ...

Compensation for buildings used for economic and commercial purposes , residential houses , portions thereof and flats which are not returned pursuant to this PERSON shall be established in accordance with the methods approved by the Government . ... ”


Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

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

NORP The applicant was granted leave to present his own case in the proceedings before the Court , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL in fine of ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , most recently Mr PERSON .

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

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in ORG ( GPE ) .

From DATE to DATE he served his sentence in FAC no . CARDINAL , a correctional colony .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination in the psychiatric hospital of FAC no . CARDINAL .

From DATE until his release on DATE he was detained in FAC no . CARDINAL .

The applicant stated in his submissions before the ORG that he was fully satisfied with the conditions of his detention and healthcare afforded to him in Vilnyansk Prison no . CARDINAL and ORG no . DATE .

According to the applicant ’s initial submissions , he was detained in “ LOC ” measuring CARDINAL sq . m ( CARDINAL x QUANTITY ) . It had CARDINAL - tier bunks and accommodated CARDINAL inmates , all suffering from tuberculosis .

Later the applicant accepted without reservation the ORG ’s account , according to which he had been accommodated in a dormitory measuring QUANTITY . m shared by CARDINAL inmates ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to the applicant , there was no heating and the temperature inside never exceeded QUANTITY in DATE . All the inmates therefore had to sleep in their outer clothes , which were permanently damp as there had been no place to dry them .

While there were CARDINAL ordinary lamps and a TIME lamp , only the bulb in the night lamp worked . As a result , the lighting was poor .

The supply of electricity was limited and intermittent . More precisely , electric power was only supplied during the following periods : CARDINAL from DATE a.m. , QUANTITY , DATE to TIME , and CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m. ; and CARDINAL from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. , and CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m.

All the prisoners ( the number of whom varied from CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) had to share CARDINAL taps for hand washing . Even those taps were unusable in DATE , as the water pipes often cracked because of frost and were not properly maintained . When this happened the inmates had to fill plastic bottles with water from the shower block or the kitchen . Some of them preferred to use snow for “ washing ” .

NORP Mere pits served for toilets , which were insufficient in number ( only five ) . The prison was infested with rats .

The quality of food was poor . The applicant noted , in particular , that inmates were served porridge for lunch and dinner most days . Twice or CARDINAL times per week mashed potatoes were on the menu . Inmates suffering from tuberculosis also received carrot juice in the morning , biscuits at lunch and cheese in the evening . Meat was served not as separate portions for each detainee , but from a communal casserole dish . Butter was also served from a shared dish . Sweets were offered instead of sugar . According to the applicant ’s calculations , detainees suffering from tuberculosis received PERCENT fewer calories than the required nutritional amount .

The prison in question is a medium - security correctional colony for men who have served their prison sentence . The applicant was held in the “ resocialisation ” section , where inmates are accommodated in dormitories . The section measured CARDINAL sq . m and comprised CARDINAL dormitories ( each measuring CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL sq . m ) .

The applicant slept in dormitory no . CARDINAL measuring CARDINAL sq . m. He shared it with CARDINAL inmates , all having a medical history of tuberculosis .

There were CARDINAL fluorescent tube lamps used for lighting in the dormitory . It also had CARDINAL windows , each measuring CARDINAL sq . m.

The dormitory had satisfactory sanitary conditions . It had a bathroom unit measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL washing basin and CARDINAL lavatory pans .

In addition , the section had the following :

a bathroom unit measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL toilet pits and QUANTITY washbasins ;

an education room measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL windows and CARDINAL lamp ;

a room for taking meals measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL lamps and CARDINAL windows ;

a room for storing prisoners’ personal belongings measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL window and CARDINAL lamp ;

a special room for drying clothes and shoes measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL window and CARDINAL lamp .

Prisoners also had at their disposal a sports ground , a smoking area and an outside area for drying clothes .

The dormitories were ventilated twice a day : from CARDINAL to CARDINAL a.m. during the morning check , and from CARDINAL to CARDINAL TIME check .

NORP The prison was centrally heated in DATE and by stand - alone boilers during the cold DATE . The temperature in the dormitories was maintained at QUANTITY .

Prison nutrition was in compliance with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements . The applicant was provided with the full nutritional amount for people infected with mycobacterium of tuberculosis .

Aside from alleging that the physical conditions of detention and nutrition in the prison had been inadequate for inmates suffering from or having previously suffered from tuberculosis , the applicant did not give any factual account regarding his diagnosis of tuberculosis and treatment .

According to the applicant ’s medical file ( a copy of which has been submitted to ORG ) , the applicant stated on several occasions that he had suffered from tuberculosis from DATE .

On DATE , during one of his examinations by a tuberculosis specialist in the GPE , the applicant was diagnosed with a minor inflammation in his left lung , known as a Ghon focus , with a limited likelihood of it progressing to tuberculosis . As a result , he was placed under medical supervision for DATE .

Upon his arrival at the prison the applicant underwent a medical examination which included urine , blood and sputum tests and an X - ray . As a result , he was prescribed and underwent tuberculosis anti - relapse therapy .

On DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant was X - rayed . Furthermore , on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE he was examined by a tuberculosis specialist . As a result , he was prescribed and received certain medication as preventive medical treatment .

According to the applicant ’s initial submissions , during his detention in ORG no . CARDINAL his sight progressively deteriorated for DATE . Despite this , his requests for a specialist examination remained ignored , as the prison did not employ an ophthalmologist , and seeking an external consultation was not deemed feasible .

According to the applicant ’s later observations in reply to those of the Government , all the inmates of ORG no . CARDINAL who had any sight - related complaints could register for an examination with a visiting ophthalmologist from ORG . The applicant provided no further details .

As submitted by the ORG , the applicant did not raise a single complaint about his sight deterioration during his detention in ORG .

On DATE he was diagnosed for the first time with visual impairment ( no further details being available ) in FAC , and he was told to wear spectacles . The applicant was placed under dispensary supervision in that regard , with check - ups twice DATE . He was also prescribed medical treatment for meibomitis of the upper eyelid of the left eye ( an inflammation of glands that produce an oily substance to reduce the evaporation of a person ’s tears ) .

The applicant alleged that he had contracted onychomycosis of both feet and the left hand , as a result of poor sanitary conditions . According to him , the head of the medical unit of ORG refused to provide him with any treatment , telling him that there was a lack of medication and that this type of infection was not dangerous .

According to the applicant ’s medical file ( submitted by the Government ) , on DATE , while the applicant was detained in the Kherson SIZO , he was examined by a dermatologist who did not diagnose him with any dermatological conditions .

As stated by the Government on the basis of the applicant ’s medical file , during his detention in ORG the applicant only applied once for medical assistance regarding skin problems , on DATE . He was examined and diagnosed with a foot fissure . As a result , he was prescribed and treated with PERSON ointment .

According to the ORG , the applicant did not subsequently raise any complaints regarding any dermatological conditions with the medical staff or prison administration . Nor did he raise any such complaints with the prosecutor .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the psychiatric hospital of FAC no . CARDINAL . His general medical examination upon arrival there did not reveal any skin rashes , scabs , pediculosis or any other dermatological conditions . The applicant did not raise any complaints either .

NORP On DATE the applicant consulted an ophthalmologist who gave the following diagnoses : high - degree myopia , myopic astigmatism , central and peripheral chorioretinal dystrophy of the right eye ; and low - degree myopia and myopic astigmatism of the left eye . Further examinations were recommended with a view to defining the appropriate treatment .

The applicant neither undertook the recommended examinations nor sought any treatment , referring to the fact that he was experiencing financial hardship .

On DATE the applicant was also examined in a local dermatovenerologic hospital . He was diagnosed with onychomycosis of both feet and the left hand , and was recommended treatment .

The applicant did not pursue any treatment , which he explained to the ORG was because of his low income .


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was a party to civil proceedings concerning division of co - ownership of a certain plot of land . The proceedings were instituted in DATE . On DATE the ORG awarded the plot to a certain PERSON and ordered that a certain amount should be paid to the applicant .

On DATE the ORG partly amended the firstinstance decision increasing the amount awarded to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his appeal .

On DATE the applicant requested to be served with written grounds to that judgment . On DATE the court served him with them and the thirtyday timelimit for lodging of a cassation appeal started to run .

By a letter of DATE , served on the court on DATE , the applicant requested that a legalaid lawyer be assigned to the case to prepare a cassation complaint . On DATE the court requested the applicant to submit a statement of his financial situation in order to be able to examine his request .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant 's request for legal aid . On DATE ORG assigned a legalaid lawyer to the case .

On DATE and DATE the applicant and the lawyer had a telephone conversation . In a letter to the lawyer dated DATE the applicant explained in a detailed manner the legal context of the case and the reasons for which he was of the view that a cassation complaint offered prospects of success .

In a letter to the court dated DATE the lawyer explained in detail why she saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the applicant 's case .

On DATE the legal - aid lawyer sent a copy of his opinion to the applicant . It was served on the applicant on DATE . On DATE also the court sent the lawyer 's opinion to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to exempt him from costs of making copies of documents in the case - file . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request as unfounded . The court established that the applicant owned property of CARDINAL ha and the proceedings had ended in DATE so he had enough time to collect founds for that purpose . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's interlocutory appeal .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with ORG against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the ORG 's judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE .

NORP In particular , ORG has repeatedly held that a request for leave to appeal out of time was the only method by which a cassation appeal submitted after the expiry of the timelimit could be admitted for examination ( DATE , II CZ CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , II UZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In a further series of decisions ORG considered that it would be unfair for the legally - aided party to be penalised for the fact that legalaid applications could not be processed quickly enough to make it possible for a cassation appeal to be lodged within DATE counted from DATE of service of the judgment on the party . The parties waiting for legal - aid services can not be held at fault for shortcomings in the system . A party who was obliged to have recourse to legal aid should not be put in a worse situation than that of a person who did not seek it . A request to appeal out of time should therefore be submitted within DATE from the date on which the legal - aid lawyer could obtain effective access to the case file or had an effective possibility of drafting an appeal ( DATE , II UZ CARDINAL ; DATE , I ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , or from the date when the lawyer was informed that he had been assigned to the case by ORG DATE , PERSON ; CARDINAL DATE , II UZ DATE ; CARDINAL DATE , PERSON ;

In a resolution adopted by a bench of CARDINAL judges of ORG on DATE ( III CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) that court acknowledged that there had been discrepancies in the manner in which the beginning of the DATE time limit for submitting an application for leave to appeal out of time by legally - assisted parties had been determined . The court was of the view that applications for leave served the purpose of making access to ORG for legally - aided parties genuine and effective . Hence , the beginning of the time - limit could not be determined in a mechanical manner in all cases . The courts should instead examine the circumstances of individual cases as a whole and determine that date bearing in mind the genuine possibility for a lawyer to examine the case and prepare a cassation appeal .