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

The applicant is an NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE .

According to the applicant , TIME on CARDINAL DATE he , accompanied by CARDINAL other persons , including Mr S.T.E. , entered a night - club , named GPE , in PERSON . After a while the applicant had an argument with a certain Mr PERSON , whereupon the latter arm - locked the applicant 's throat and both fell to the floor . A fight broke out involving ORG and CARDINAL of ORG 's friends . PERSON tried to stop the fight but ORG knocked S.S. unconscious , following which he fell on his back and hit the back of his neck on the floor . The applicant and his companions left the night - club in a hurry for ORG 's home .

When , shortly thereafter , the police officers arrived at the scene , a man was lying unconscious on a sofa in the innermost part of the LOC . According to the summary of facts found in the national courts ' judgments referred to below , the police officers had been told that he had been struck on the head and that QUANTITY persons , QUANTITY men and CARDINAL woman , had attacked him , struck him , treated him roughly and kicked him in the head . The person who was said to be mainly responsible was nicknamed PERSON , a reference to the applicant . The persons in question were also said to have beaten CARDINAL of ORG 's friends , resulting in visible injuries . The former had then left TIME - club . The police reports recording the witness evidence were not entirely clear . Investigators of ORG had not been called immediately and arrived at the scene after the witnesses had left .

While an ambulance took FAC to the emergency ward of ORG his heart stopped beating and his breathing ceased . The heartbeat was recovered after resuscitation in the ambulance , but on arrival at the ward ORG 's pupils were still wide and unresponsive to light . The only injury noticed on first examination was a small haematoma at the back of the neck . A tomograph examination however revealed an extensive sub - arachnoidal haemorrage . Brain surgery was performed immediately , but the attempts to save his life were unsuccessful . FAC died DATE .

An autopsy carried out on CARDINAL DATE concluded that an extensive cerebral haemorrhage had been the cause of death . Moreover , according to the autopsy report , from a bruise on the hairy scalp in the neck region and a haematoma under the scalp , it could be deduced that an impact ( i.e. a blow , a kick or a fall ) causing a sharp movement to the brain could have resulted in a tear of an artery and the resultant haemorrhage . No evidence had been found to the effect that the haemorrhage could have been caused by disease . ORG had been heavily under the influence of alcohol at the time he received the injury to his head .

On becoming aware DATE after the incident that ORG had been taken to hospital and was in a poor state , the applicant reported to ORG . During questioning he admitted to having had a scuffle with the deceased but he denied having kicked him in the head . A forensic examination was carried out on the applicant 's shoes DATE after the event but no evidence was found to substantiate such an allegation .

On DATE S.T.E. was indicted with having attacked FAC , and for having dealt him a heavy blow to the back of the head causing him to fall unconscious to the floor . The applicant was charged with having subsequently kicked FAC in the head once as the latter lay on the floor , causing a massive cerebral haemorrhage leading to ORG 's death . The charges were made under LAW ( No . CARDINAL ) , as amended by LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

In the proceedings before it , ORG of PERSON heard both defendants and CARDINAL witnesses . The witness accounts relating to the incident diverged greatly and some of the witnesses changed the version they had previously given to the police .

By judgment of DATE , ORG convicted and sentenced ORG to DATE imprisonment and acquitted the applicant on the ground of lack of evidence . Its reasoning included the following observations :

“ The accounts of the fight at the GPE club diverge greatly but it has been established that it was of short duration and that it involved not only the defendants and the late ORG but also others ... . The LOC were rather badly lit with coloured and blinking lights . It is also to be borne in mind that many of the witnesses who have testified in this case were under the influence of alcohol , some of them heavily . It is also established that the deceased was heavily intoxicated .

The applicant has firmly denied having kicked ORG in the head . S.T.E. has stated that , as FAC was on all fours trying to stand up , the [ applicant ] had kicked him distinctly in the neck with the tip of his shoe . [ ORG 's ] account is not consistent with any other statement and must be rejected . A witness has testified that [ the applicant ] kicked with the tip of his shoe on the back of the deceased 's head as he lay on his side . Others have not ascribed such conduct to the [ applicant ] and the examination of his shoes fails to provide support for this testimony . Nor is [ ORG 's ] statement ... supported by the nature of the injury on the deceased 's neck and what has been found as regards the type of shoes the [ applicant ] was wearing . Bearing this in mind , and having regard to the [ applicant 's ] firm denial , it has not been established that he kicked the deceased 's head . He is therefore to be acquitted .

The defendant ORG has also firmly denied having struck the late S.S. On the other hand ORG has stated that a big , thickset man in DATE , wearing a ... striped or brightly patterned ... garment , dealt a man in a blue shirt a blow behind his right ear , so that he fell forward . ORG has stated that he saw ORG strike S.S. high on his head . O.R.J. has stated that he saw a man ... strike the deceased on the head , at the rear or on the side . ORG has described how a man in a light coloured shirt and jeans struck another man to the side of his eye with an audible impact and has stated that the man fell on the floor , again with an audible impact . Despite the fact that their testimonies are inconsistent , they all agree that the man stricken did not stand up again . ORG finds it established that ... the defendant S.T.E. dealt the late S.S. one blow to his head in the course of the fight , so that he fell on the floor and lay there unconscious . Nothing can be determined as to whether the cerebral haemorrhage was a result of the blow or the fall or both , but the defendant is criminally liable for these tragic consequences . He is therefore guilty of a violation of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . ”

On DATE ORG appealed against the applicant 's acquittal to ORG and requested his conviction of the charges in the indictment and a sentence , as well as a heavier sentence for ORG further stated : “ [ The defendants were ] therefore summoned to appear before ORG when the case will be tried there , to hear the charges , to respond on their behalf and to accept judgment . They may not expect to be served any further notification or summons . ”

In his supplementary observations of DATE , the ORG reiterated ORG finding that the co - defendant ORG had dealt the victim S.S. one blow in his head in the course of the fight so that he fell on to the floor and lay there unconscious , and that nothing could be determined as to whether the cerebral haemorrhage was the result of the blow or the fall or both . He pointed out that defendant S.T.E had stated that the applicant had kicked FAC in the head when he was trying to stand up and that witness PERSON had definitely stated that the applicant had kicked the back of S.S. ' head as he lay on the floor . Their statements related to the same kicking of ORG 's head . The discrepancy in their statements could not justify rejecting PERSON 's statement on this point . The grave and sustained physical assault by both defendants led to the haemorrhage and the victim 's sudden death .

In a writ of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant 's defence counsel replied that it could not be seen from ORG submissions that he considered that ORG had incorrectly assessed the evidence , as he did not request ORG to quash the lower court 's judgment and remit the case to the latter . Counsel for the defence further made detailed arguments against those made by ORG on the witness evidence , stressing that the evidence of the co - defendant ORG was unreliable as he obviously had a personal interest in the applicant being found guilty of the charges .

After having heard the prosecution and counsel for the applicant , but not the applicant himself or any witnesses , ORG , by judgment of CARDINAL DATE , convicted the applicant of the initial charge and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . Moreover , it upheld ORG sentence of ORG case - file included transcripts of the oral evidence before ORG and all documents submitted in the proceedings before the latter , such as police reports concerning the incident at the GPE club , statements of witnesses provided to the police at the investigation stage , autopsy reports and other results from the medical examination of the deceased , as well as a medical report on the applicant , and photographs of the applicant , his co - defendant and the other QUANTITY persons who were involved in the fight and who later became witnesses in the case . It also included photographs of the shoes which the applicant was wearing that night and photographs and drawings of the LOC where the fight took place at the GPE club . There were , moreover , several other documents , such as the applicant 's criminal record .

ORG held :

“ ... ORG finding that the deceased died from a sub - arachnoidal haemorrhage resulting from an impact or impacts on the head is upheld . The only external injuries observed on his head were a bruise on the hairy scalp on the neck and a haematoma under the scalp . The injury was not shown to have been caused by a heavy impact or impacts on the neck and it has been sufficiently determined that a relatively light impact could cause such injury . The fact that the deceased was heavily intoxicated is also of significance .

Despite the fact that the [ witness ] statements ... are somewhat lacking in clarity , ORG does not find it imprudent to conclude that both defendants , together with ORG , assaulted the deceased . The latter witness stated to the police , and in fact confirmed in court , that defendant S.T.E. struck the man on his head . This is supported by the statements of witnesses ORG and O.R.J. and also by ORG 's own statement that he struck CARDINAL fellow . However , it must be borne in mind that PERSON traces an injury to the applicant , and PERSON traces an injury to ORG Accordingly , ORG finds it proven that ORG dealt S.S. a blow on his head , with the result that he fell onto the floor . In witness PERSON 's statement , which to a certain extent is supported by doorkeeper DATE 's statement and the initial statements of those who were present at the scene to the effect that the deceased was kicked in the head , it has also been sufficiently established that the applicant subsequently kicked ORG in the head while he was lying on the floor .

In view of all the above evidence it has been proven that both defendants attacked the deceased , who was so much under the influence of alcohol that he was unable to fight or to protect himself from falling . No other person can be considered to have inflicted on ORG the injury that led to his death . The defendants ought to have been aware that their assault could result in serious injury . Considering the act and its consequences which are to be regarded as unintentional , both defendant 's conduct is deemed to violate LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... . According to the autopsy report and the statement of the doctor performing the autopsy ... the consequences of the assault were more serious than what was to be expected . This must be taken into account in sentencing . ”

The minority ( of CARDINAL judge ) stated :

“ The witnesses ' statements relating to the events at the GPE club on CARDINAL DATE ... are described in the majority opinion and in ORG judgment . The description includes the part played by the defendant ORG , who denied the charges . In spite of his denial , I find it established that , with his fist , he dealt [ S.S. ] ... a blow on the back of the latter 's head causing him to fall onto the floor where he subsequently lay motionless . An injury was found on the upper part of the neck . I consider that a judgement shall be rendered on the basis that this act perpetrated by defendant S.T.E. led to [ ORG 's ] death . ... I concur with the other judges that the penalty of this defendant shall be DATE imprisonment .

The [ applicant ] also denied the charges . CARDINAL witness firmly stated that he saw this defendant kick the deceased in the head as he lay in the floor . Another witness , a doorkeeper at the GPE club , testified that he had seen someone kick the man as he lay on the floor . To him this seemed a kick , but he could not state who kicked , nor where the kick hit the body . The witness did not mention this when making his statement to the police on DATE . When questioned again by the police DATE , the witness was quoted as saying : ' This was a fight where he saw hands beating and feet kicking , but he could not determine who beat whom or whether somebody kicked somebody ' . Considering the case as a whole , the charges are not borne out by this witness statement . I find that the prosecution has failed to establish the [ applicant 's ] guilt and that his acquittal by ORG is therefore to be upheld . ”

LAW ( as amended by LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG cases shall generally be presented orally during the final hearing . The ORG may however decide that the final presentation of a case shall take place in writing , if there are particular reasons making this commendable . ORG may also receive a case for adjudication without a final presentation if both parties request this or if the appeal only concerns a revision of the sanctions ordered . ...

ORG may decide , to the extent necessary , to receive in court statements given orally in evidence , if the ORG deems , in the light of the facts , that the evidence in question may affect the outcome of the case . ”

Article CARDINAL provides :

“ CARDINAL . ORG can not order a heavier penalty or other sanctions unless the prosecution authority has , for that purpose , appealed against a judgment .

If an appeal has been lodged against a judgment by the prosecution authority but not by the defendant , ORG may nevertheless change the judgment for the benefit of the defendant .

In the case of an appeal on the merits of a judgment , ORG shall not change the sanctions ordered except if they exceed the limits provided for in the relevant criminal provisions or if they are disproportionate to the offence committed by the defendant .

ORG can not revise a district court 's conclusion concerning the evidential value of oral statements , except if the witness in question , or the defendant , has made a statement before ORG .

If ORG considers it likely that the conclusion of a district court concerning the evidential value of oral statements in court may be incorrect so as to materially affect the outcome of the case , and the witnesses in question or the defendant have not provided oral statements before ORG , ORG may invalidate the judgment of the district court and the district court procedure to the extent necessary to enable oral evidence to be received by the district court as needed , and a new judgment to be rendered . ”

The Government submitted that , according to legal practice , the meaning of the expression “ evidential value of oral statements ” in LAW ) is twofold . Firstly , it refers to the assessment of the credibility of a witness and his or her statements considered on its own . For this purpose it is necessary that the witness appear in court and be questioned by the judge directly . Secondly , the provision in LAW ) refers to the weight of his or her testimony as compared with that of other evidence in the case , where ORG has accepted ORG assessment of the witness ' credibility . The main purpose of the provision is to guarantee that ORG will not reassess the credibility of a witness who has given oral evidence to ORG . According to the Government , this interpretation finds support in the explanatory report accompanying the bill for LAW No . CARDINAL amending the provisions regarding proceedings before ORG . If the latter considers that ORG has assessed the credibility of the witness statements wrongly , it would quash the first instance judgment and , in so far as necessary , order ORG to take new oral evidence and give a new judgment . An example of ORG having taken evidence under LAW ) could be found in ORG case no . CARDINAL , adjudicated on DATE , where ORG , after having already once quashed ORG assessment of the matter , found it necessary in a second round to appraise itself of the credibility of the accused 's defence .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant , a retired military serviceman , brought court proceedings against ORG of GPE ( “ the FAC ” ) .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ruled that the applicant was entitled to a DATE allowance for health damage related to professional hardship of MONEY ( RUB ) and a DATE allowance for food expenses of RUB MONEY . The court also found that the debt accrued as a result of previous underpayment of the DATE allowance for health damage was RUB PERSON , the debt in respect of the allowance for food expenses was RUB MONEY and the debt in respect of the DATE allowance for health damage accrued in DATE was RUB CARDINAL . The court also ordered that the DATE allowances awarded to be subsequently adjusted in line with inflation .

The judgment was not appealed against and on DATE became final .

On DATE and DATE the arrears awarded for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE were paid to the applicant .

On DATE the ORG applied for the supervisory review of the judgment .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE , by way of supervisory review proceedings , quashed the judgment of DATE in the part obliging the respondent ORG to index - link the payments and upheld the remainder of the first instance court ’s findings .

On DATE the ORG rejected the ORG ’s request to annul the judgment of DATE due to discovery of new circumstances . The applicant made written submissions and , apparently , was present at the court room .

On DATE the ORG introduced a new application for the supervisory review of the judgments of DATE and DATE with ORG of GPE .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE , by way of supervisory review proceedings , quashed the judgment of DATE on the ground of incorrect application of the domestic law and remitted the case for a new examination . The ORG also annulled the judgment of CARDINAL DATE insofar as the latter upheld the award made on DATE .

On DATE the ORG examined the case afresh and granted the applicant ’s claims in full . The court ordered the ORG to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in arrears in food allowance for the period from DATE to DATE RUB ORG in arrears in compensation for health damage . The applicant was further awarded RUB CARDINAL DATE in respect of the food allowance and RUB CARDINAL in compensation for health damage . On DATE the judgment was upheld by ORG . On DATE the award was enforced .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the city of ORG .

NORP Criminal proceedings instituted in DATE

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant . He was charged with extortion of money from PERSON . and PERSON .

On an unspecified date PERSON . and PERSON . lodged their civil claims . They claimed payment of compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond .

On DATE the applicant was also charged with causing damage to official documents while studying his case file .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the court convicted the applicant of extortion and damaging official documents and sentenced him to a suspended term of DATE imprisonment . By the same judgment the court partly allowed the civil claims .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the part of the judgment concerning the applicant 's conviction for damaging official documents and ruled that the proceedings in that respect should be terminated since there was insufficient evidence against the applicant .

By the same ruling ORG quashed the remainder of the judgment and remitted it for fresh consideration to the firstinstance court on the ground that the latter had failed to examine all the

On DATE the ORG of Kharkiv convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended . By the same judgment the court partly allowed the civil claims lodged by PERSON . and PERSON .

On DATE the ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal in cassation by the applicant .

The hearings in the case were scheduled at intervals ranging DATE . In the course of the proceedings CARDINAL expert reports were obtained . This took DATE . On CARDINAL occasion the applicant challenged a judge who was considering his case .

B. Other proceedings

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) in compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused to the applicant due to PERSON 's failure to repay a debt he owed to the applicant . On an unspecified date the judgment was quashed by a higher court .

In DATE new criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant . On DATE he was arrested . He was remanded in custody .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

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

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

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant instituted restitution proceedings before the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) . On DATE the case was formally registered by the court .

The proceedings terminated by a decision of ORG ( Ústavní soud ) of DATE which was notified to the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the Neustift community ( GPE ) requested a permit from ORG ( Bezirkshaupt - mannschaft ) to enlarge its canalisation system . At a hearing scheduled on DATE the applicant , who had not been summoned as a party , filed objections and submitted that the project would interfere with his property rights as it would affect the drainage system on his real estates .

On DATE , after having heard an official expert on water construction technology and biology , ORG granted the requested permit . The applicant lodged an appeal with the NORP Regional Governor ( PERSON ) .

In the subsequent proceedings the Regional Governor ordered the expert to supplement his opinion which was then submitted to the applicant for comment .

On DATE the Regional Governor ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant 's appeal . Referring to the supplemented expert opinion , the Regional Governor found that the project at issue would not affect the drainage system on the applicant 's LOC .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) .

Having held an oral hearing , upon the applicant 's request , ORG dismissed this complaint on DATE . It noted that the breach of the applicant 's right to being summoned to be heard as a party before ORG had been remedied in the course of the proceedings . The applicant had been given an opportunity to submit comments and objections before the second instance and had thus been heard as a party . As to the remaining complaint concerning the alleged interference of the project with his property , ORG found that the applicant 's general submissions could not disprove the conclusive findings of the expert . This decision was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who lives in GPE ( GPE ) . He is represented before the ORG by Mr K. Bernhauser , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the GPE Police authority on suspicion of cigarette smuggling . Further examinations by ORG ( PERSON ) took place on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG formally decided to institute proceedings for smuggling under LAW .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to institute proceedings against him . In his appeal he submitted , inter alia , that the proceedings had already lasted an unreasonably long time and requested that they be discontinued .

The proceedings against the applicant are still pending .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in its relevant part , reads as follows :

“ An action for breach by the administrative authorities ... of the duty to decide can be lodged by anyone entitled as a party in administrative proceedings to enforce that duty . An action for breach of the duty to decide is inadmissible in administrative criminal proceedings , except as regards private prosecutions and prosecutions in respect of tax offences . ”

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG ) as amended by LAW DATE ( GPE - GPE DATE ) , ORG DATE Part I No . CARDINAL ( BGBl . Nr . I CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) as in force since DATE , reads as follows :

“ Financial criminal proceedings shall always be conducted expeditiously and without unnecessary delay and shall be terminated within adequate time . Proceedings during which an accused is detained shall be conducted with particular expedience . If a finance prosecution authority is dilatory in taking procedural action , the accused may file a request with the finance prosecution authority directed at the head of ORG of ORG ( ORG des unabhängigen PERSON ) referred to in LAW ( CARDINAL ) to set an adequate time - limit for the finance prosecution authority to take the procedural action . If the finance prosecution authority has taken the procedural action prior to the decision on the request , the request shall be deemed withdrawn . ”


Violation of Art. 5-1 (as regards the detention of the applicant between 18 May and 11 October 2001);Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violations sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Alvina Gyulumyan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Ineta Ziemele;John Hedigan;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

On DATE PERSON , a head of division at ORG , was murdered in front of the entrance to the building where she lived in GPE . The same day the specialised public prosecutor 's office for organised crime and other offences ( ORG noziedzības un citu nozaru specializētā prokuratūra ) opened a preliminary investigation into the murder .

On DATE the police arrested CARDINAL men , GPE and GPE , on the ground that they were suspects ( aizdomās turētie ) in the murder and took them into police custody . Shortly afterwards , they were charged and placed in detention on remand .

On DATE the NORP police , acting on a request from the NORP authorities , arrested CARDINAL other men , ORG , who had fled to GPE in the meantime . On DATE the men were extradited to GPE . They too were charged with the murder of GPE and were brought before the relevant judge , who remanded them in custody .

During the preliminary investigation , the CARDINAL co - defendants gave statements to the public prosecutor to the effect that the applicant , who at the time had been the manager of a private company , had ordered and funded ORG 's murder for reasons of personal revenge . According to ORG , the applicant had first given him MONEY ( ORG ) as payment for carrying out the murder and later comparable sums to enable him to flee the country . On DATE ORG 's girlfriend , who was questioned as a witness , said that she had overheard a conversation between her boyfriend and ORG in which both men had referred to GPE as having perpetrated the murder .

Accordingly , on DATE , the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being the principal organiser and instigator of the murder . On being taken into police custody and questioned , the applicant admitted having known the victim personally ; however , she denied any financial links with her .

DATE the police conducted CARDINAL searches , CARDINAL at the applicant 's home and the other at her office . They seized a large number of documents and files , which were placed in CARDINAL cardboard boxes and taken away .

On DATE , DATE , the public prosecutor 's office placed the applicant under investigation for murder . At the same time , GPE , GPE , ORG were charged with committing the murder .

Also on DATE , the public prosecutor 's office applied to ORG seeking to have the applicant and the CARDINAL suspected perpetrators of the crime remanded in custody for an initial period of DATE . In court , the prosecution referred to the statements by the CARDINAL men , which it considered to be credible , and stressed the need to detain the applicant “ so that it [ could ] conduct a thorough preliminary investigation and establish the facts of the case in an objective manner ” . According to the prosecution , “ if PERSON remain[ed ] at liberty , there [ was ] a danger that she [ would ] hinder the determination of the truth [ and ] evade investigation and trial ” .

In an order issued on DATE following inter partes proceedings attended by the applicant and her lawyer , ORG granted the public prosecutor 's request . The order stated that the applicant 's detention was necessary in order to counter the risk of collusion and prevent her from obstructing the investigation . Further reasons given were the seriousness of the offence , the personality of the defendant and “ other circumstances ” . The applicant did not appeal against the detention order .

After being questioned on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , the applicant eventually admitted that she had had financial links with PERSON She stated in particular that , in DATE , when she had begun receiving income as an administrator of public undertakings which were being liquidated , ORG had started to extort money from her . She also said , in contradiction of her earlier statements , that she knew ORG and had told him about a row she had had with the murder victim on the subject of their financial links .

On DATE the public prosecutor presented the applicant with full details of the charges against her . According to the facts as established by the prosecutor , the applicant and PERSON had concluded a secret agreement in DATE , under the terms of which ORG had promised to appoint the applicant as administrator of the public undertakings whose liquidation she was overseeing . In return , the applicant had promised to pay her USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . By the time of GPE 's murder , the applicant had already paid her CARDINAL the sum agreed .

On DATE the public prosecutor 's office received a statement from a NORP bank to the effect that the applicant and PERSON had gone to GPE together ; during the trip , the applicant had paid all the expenses using her credit card . On DATE the ORG telecommunications company sent the prosecutor 's office records of mobile telephone conversations between the applicant and both PERSON and ORG and between the CARDINAL suspected perpetrators of the murder .

On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case requested ORG to extend the applicant 's detention on remand until DATE on the ground that a number of investigative measures , specified by the prosecutor , still needed to be carried out . The measures involved preparing expert reports on the physical evidence gathered at the applicant 's home and office and on her state of health , organising CARDINAL confrontations with the defendants , questioning CARDINAL further witnesses and requesting relevant information from ORG 's ORG . The prosecutor also expressed the view that the applicant 's guilt was “ demonstrated by the statements of her co - defendants and witnesses , the reports [ on the scene and the physical evidence ] , the expert opinions and the remaining evidence in the case file ” .

In an order of DATE issued in the presence of the applicant 's lawyer , the relevant judge at ORG granted the public prosecutor 's request . The order read as follows :

“ Order extending detention on remand

GPE , DATE

[ GPE ] , judge at FAC , has examined the evidence in the criminal file ... concerning the aggravated murder of [ GPE ] , committed in the courtyard of QUANTITY Valguma Street , GPE on DATE . The file was submitted by prosecutor [ ORG ] of the specialised public prosecutor 's office for organised crime and other offences , with a request for extension of the detention on remand of PERSON , who has been charged under LAW and CARDINAL ... of LAW . Having heard the observations of [ ORG ] and the opinion of the lawyer / lawyers [ DATE ] , the ORG

having noted [ the following ] :

The time allowed for preferring the indictment in this case has been extended until DATE .

The crime of which ORG stands accused is particularly serious . Accordingly , if she remains at liberty , there is a danger that she will evade investigation and trial , commit further criminal offences and hinder the determination of the truth in the criminal case . [ Consequently ] , without examining whether the defendant is guilty or innocent of the charges against her , I consider it appropriate to extend the period of detention in question .

Having regard to the above and on the basis of LAW kodekss LAW Procedure ] ,

I hereby decide :

To extend the detention on remand of PERSON ... until DATE .

This order is amenable to appeal before ORG , the appeal to be lodged with ORG .

Execution of the order shall not be stayed pending such appeal .

Judge : [ signature ] ”

The above order , which was CARDINAL page long , had been typed on a computer and printed out . However , the fields for the date , the judge 's name and the lawyer 's name had been left blank , and the relevant information ( given in italics above ) had been added by hand .

The applicant appealed against the order before ORG . In her memorial she submitted that the first - instance judge had omitted to conduct a thorough examination of all the evidence in the file before issuing the order . The applicant further argued that the seriousness of the offence was not sufficient in itself to warrant extending her detention and that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that she intended to evade investigation or commit further offences . In that connection she stressed that she had left the country several times since the murder and had always returned to GPE ; this proved that she had no intention of absconding or obstructing the investigation .

By an order dated DATE , issued following a hearing attended by the applicant and her lawyer , ORG dismissed the appeal in the following terms :

“ ... Having taken cognisance of the evidence in the case file and heard evidence from the parties , the ORG concludes that there are plausible reasons to believe that , if PERSON remains at liberty , there is a danger that she will evade investigation and trial and hinder the determination of the truth in this case . The ORG further takes into consideration the seriousness of the charges against PERSON ; [ it ] considers that the order issued by ORG ... on DATE is in accordance with the law and is justified . ... ”

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant provided the public prosecutor 's office with detailed information concerning the sums of money she had paid to ORG since DATE . On DATE she sent further information to ORG , stating that PERSON had harassed her and extorted large sums of money from her ; accordingly , she requested that a separate criminal investigation be opened into the alleged extortion and that she be acquitted .

On DATE the public prosecutor 's office requested ORG to extend the applicant 's detention on remand until DATE . In support of its request , it referred to the need to organise CARDINAL further confrontations , question CARDINAL further witnesses , study the new statements made by the applicant alleging that ORG had extorted funds from her , examine and analyse the evidence obtained from abroad as a result of international judicial cooperation , examine certain items of physical evidence and order a psychologist 's expert report on the defendants ORG

By an order dated DATE , the relevant judge granted the public prosecutor 's request . The wording and layout ( font , positioning of the text and line spacing ) exactly matched those of the order of DATE . Only the date , the judge 's name , his signature and the length of detention were different . The field for the lawyer 's name , meanwhile , had been left blank .

The applicant appealed against this order before ORG which , in an order issued on DATE following inter partes proceedings , dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the applicant “ [ was ] accused of a particularly serious crime [ and ] ha[d ] pleaded not guilty ; that the crime in question [ had been ] committed by an organised group ; that there [ were ] good grounds for suspecting that she might attempt to hinder the determination of the truth in the case ” .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG alleging that the public prosecutor “ ha[d ] , without any justification , disregarded the comments and oral suggestions from the defence concerning the procedural aspects of the case ” . According to the applicant , her lawyer had made oral requests for permission to consult the investigation file . ORG did not reply .

On DATE the public prosecutor requested a further extension of the applicant 's detention , this time until DATE . The reasons given were essentially the same as those cited in the request of CARDINAL September CARDINAL , the only differences were the number of witnesses to be questioned ( CARDINAL ) , and a reference to the need to carry out biological tests , in particular DNA tests .

On DATE the judge ordered the applicant 's continued detention until DATE . This order was drawn up in the same manner as those of DATE and DATE , with the date and the lawyer 's name having been added by hand . The judge 's name had first been typed but had then been crossed out with a ballpoint pen , and the stamp of another judge had been added beside it ; the order had been signed by the second judge .

The applicant then lodged a fresh appeal with ORG . In her memorial she submitted that the proceedings leading to adoption of the document in question had constituted a serious breach of the former LAW kodekss – “ the ORG ” ) , which was in force at the time . In that connection the applicant observed that all the orders issued by the court of first instance , by CARDINAL different judges , had been absolutely identical , even in the way they were worded . She inferred from this that the judges had merely signed the draft orders prepared in advance by the prosecutor . In the applicant 's view , this theory was borne out by the fact that the most recent decision had been taken in camera in the judge 's office ; the judge had allowed the applicant 's lawyer into the room only after he had spent TIME alone with the prosecutor . Consequently , the lawyer had not even been able to hear the prosecutor 's observations , the defence having been present only when the judge had signed the draft decision , which had been prepared in advance . The applicant also reiterated her previous arguments against her continued detention .

By an order made on DATE after inter partes proceedings , similar to the order of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the impugned order , observing that the murder in question had been committed by a group of persons and that the applicant had pleaded not guilty . In court , the applicant 's lawyer was invited to speak first . However , despite repeated requests on his part , the judge did not permit him to reply to the prosecutor 's observations . ORG also did not reply to the applicant 's arguments based on LAW as interpreted by certain judgments of ORG , declining to take cognisance of the copies of the relevant judgments or to add them to the case file .

On DATE the applicant lodged a second complaint with ORG , alleging a series of procedural irregularities , in particular the refusal of the relevant prosecutor to grant defence counsel access to the file . In a letter dated DATE , ORG rejected this complaint on the ground that the requests supposedly made by the defence did not feature in any official record ; the letter added that a copy of the entire file would be sent to the applicant once the investigation had been completed .

On DATE the public prosecutor 's office attempted to obtain information concerning the transfers of funds between the applicant and the murder victim . To that end it made enquiries of CARDINAL NORP banks ; none had accounts under the names in question .

On DATE the public prosecutor 's office applied for a further extension of the applicant 's detention on the ground that she had made further statements in the meantime to the effect that ORG , one of the suspected perpetrators of the murder , had raped her and then subjected her to pressure . The prosecution further cited the need to carry out the same investigative measures referred to in its previous requests , the only difference being the number of witnesses to be questioned ( CARDINAL ) .

In an order of DATE , ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . Again , the order was virtually identical to the previous orders issued by the same court , apart from a few details concerning the names of the judge , the prosecutors and the lawyer . This time the whole order had been typed and no additions or corrections had been made by hand .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , complaining in particular of the refusal of the public prosecutor 's office and the court to allow her lawyer access to the documents in the investigation file on which her continued detention had been based . On DATE the court dismissed her appeal in an order which was to all intents and purposes identical to those of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL October CARDINAL . In addition to the seriousness of the crime , this order also cited as a reason the risk that the applicant might abscond or evade justice .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG , CARDINAL of the applicant 's co - defendants , had been released and placed under police surveillance ( nodošana policijas uzraudzībā ) . In addition , on DATE , the public prosecutor 's office drew up a fresh charge against the applicant , charging her with commercial corruption within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of LAW .

In CARDINAL orders dated DATE and DATE , ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE and DATE respectively . In both cases the court was ruling on requests from the public prosecutor 's office based on the necessity of carrying out a number of additional investigative measures . As in its previous requests , the prosecutor 's office cited the need to question further witnesses ( CARDINAL ) . However , it laid particular emphasis on the need to send the documents in the file to the applicant , her co - defendants and their lawyers , to prepare the final indictment and to prepare the case for trial .

The layout of the CARDINAL orders was again identical to all the previous orders given by the same court in the instant case . Although the order of DATE , having been typed entirely on a computer , differed in appearance from the other orders , it was identical to them in content .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged appeals with ORG , complaining in particular of the refusal by the public prosecutor 's office and the court to allow her lawyer access to the documents in the investigation file on which her continued detention had been based .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeals and upheld the impugned orders . All the decisions of ORG were drafted in terms virtually identical to the orders of DATE and DATE . Only the decision of CARDINAL DATE specified that the applicant 's continued detention was justified on account of her personality and that the first - instance court had had legitimate grounds to fear a risk of collusion , since the applicant had made the arrangements for her co - defendants to flee the country .

On CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor 's office concluded the investigation and sent copies of the documents in the file to the applicant . On DATE the applicant began studying the file , which comprised CARDINAL volumes .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the attitude of the prosecutor handling her case , who had sent her only a few documents at a time and at long intervals . In letters of DATE and DATE , ORG rejected her complaints without giving any reasons .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the latest order for the applicant 's detention expired . However , as she had begun studying the documents in the investigation file , her release was “ suspended ” in accordance with the fifth paragraph of LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She therefore remained in detention .

On DATE the applicant finished studying the documents in the file . On DATE she requested the public prosecutor 's office to question a number of persons who had allegedly seen her in a GPE hotel DATE after PERSON 's murder . The request was rejected for failure to give reasons ; the prosecutor 's office took the view that the defence had not made sufficiently clear how the evidence of the persons concerned could establish the applicant 's innocence or contribute any new evidence to her file .

The applicant 's co - defendants , ORG , GPE and ORG , finished studying the file on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . On DATE the prosecutor dealing with the case informed the applicant that all the parties had now taken cognisance of the file .

On DATE the public prosecutor signed the final indictment ( apsūdzības raksts ) against the applicant and her CARDINAL co - defendants . The file was subsequently sent to the trial court , in this case ORG . On DATE the relevant judge of ORG found that there was sufficient evidence in the file and decided to commit the applicant for trial ( lēmums par apsūdzētās nodošanu tiesai ) . As to the preventive measure applied to the applicant , the judge decided to extend it , without , however , giving any reasons .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the same judge requesting that she be released . She asked him to convene , if necessary , a preparatory hearing ( rīcības sēde ) to examine whether her detention was justified . In a letter of DATE , the judge rejected the request , reminding the applicant that she stood accused of a crime punishable by life imprisonment , and that the preventive measure reflected the seriousness of the offence and her personality . The judge further stated that there were “ no grounds ” for convening a preparatory hearing . Lastly , he observed that the applicant would have an opportunity to reiterate her request for release at the hearing on the merits of her case , and informed her that the hearing had been set down for DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the President of ORG to review the merits of her detention and to take steps to expedite the consideration of her case , arguing in particular that a prolonged term of detention was in breach of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW . In a letter of DATE , the President replied that ORG did not have jurisdiction to review procedural decisions taken by the lower court in charge of a case . As to the timetable for consideration of the case , the President said that it was impossible to speed it up . He observed that “ [ c]riticism of , or requests made to , the court concerning its hearing of the case ' within a reasonable time ' [ were ] of no relevance whatsoever , as the court work[ed ] with the resources allocated to it by the ORG ” .

Notwithstanding the date initially set for the first hearing , consideration of the merits of the case began on DATE . The applicant pleaded not guilty in court .

On DATE the prosecution addressed the court . On DATE , it was the turn of the defence .

In a judgment delivered on DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of organising the murder . However , it considered that no intention to kill on the part of the applicant and CARDINAL of her co - defendants had been established ; accordingly , they were found guilty of manslaughter .

GPE , meanwhile , was found guilty of murder and illegally possessing a knife . The court also found it established that , after GPE and GPE had been arrested , the applicant had paid the other CARDINAL co - defendants substantial sums to enable them to flee the country . Finally , the court considered that the applicant 's guilt on the charge of commercial corruption had been sufficiently established .

Consequently , ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment . Her co - defendants also received long prison sentences : DATE in the case of GPE , DATE in the case of ORG and DATE in the case of ORG received a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment .

The applicant and her co - defendants lodged an appeal against this judgment with ORG . In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the applicant 's conviction for manslaughter . However , it acquitted her on the charge of commercial corruption and reduced her overall sentence to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the ORG of ORG . In a final judgment of DATE , the ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and those of her co - defendants .

The former Code of Criminal Procedure ( ORG ) , a legacy of the NORP era which was amended on numerous occasions , was applicable at the material time . It remained in force until DATE , when it was replaced by the new LAW ( GPE likums ) .

Under the terms of LAW of the ORG , a preventive measure could be applied where plausible reasons existed to suspect that the accused would seek to evade investigation or hinder the determination of the truth in the case . CARDINAL types of preventive measure existed : an undertaking not to change one 's residence , personal guarantees , financial guarantees , police surveillance , house arrest , detention in prison and CARDINAL measures specifically applicable to minors and members of the armed forces .

Under LAW of the ORG , a preventive measure had to be chosen and implemented on the basis of the following criteria : the seriousness of the alleged offence ; the personality of the accused ; the likelihood that he or she would seek to evade investigation and hinder the determination of the truth in the case ; and the accused 's occupation , age , domestic circumstances and health and other relevant criteria . Any preventive measure had to be applied on the basis of an order giving sufficient reasons .

Under the terms of LAW of the ORG , a period of detention on remand could be ordered only by a judge and only in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment . The detention order was to be issued following adversarial examination of the evidence submitted by the prosecution service or the police ; the presence of the accused was in principle compulsory .

At the material time , the principles governing the length of detention on remand and the system of appeal were fundamentally different for the preliminary investigation stage ( pirmstiesas izmeklēšana ) and the judicial stage ( iztiesāšana ) of the proceedings .

At the preliminary investigation stage ( comprising the police investigation and preparation of the case file ) , the initial period of detention on remand could not exceed DATE ( LAW . However , where it was not possible to complete the preliminary investigation and commit the accused for trial within that time , and where “ there [ were ] no grounds for amending the preventive measure ” , the prosecutor could request the judge to extend the term of detention . In such cases , evidence was heard from the accused and his or her lawyer “ if necessary ” .

The Law of DATE ( in force since DATE ) amended the second paragraph of LAW by setting a DATE limit on each successive extension of the term of detention . The detained person could appeal against an order extending his or her detention by means of an appeal before a higher court , which had to consider the appeal within DATE of receiving it . After hearing evidence from the detained person and the public prosecutor 's office , the higher court took a decision by means of a final order ( LAW ORG ) .

At this stage in the proceedings , the total length of detention on remand could in no circumstances exceed DATE . If , after DATE had elapsed , the case had still not been sent for trial , the accused person had to be released .

The fifth paragraph of LAW ORG read as follows :

“ On completion of the investigation , and before the maximum statutory period has elapsed , the documents in the file must be sent immediately to the accused and his or her counsel so that they may familiarise themselves with it . The time spent by all the accused in familiarising themselves with the documents in the file shall not be taken into account in calculating the period of detention on remand ... ”

In practice , the prosecuting authorities and the courts interpreted the second sentence of this provision as authorising the continued detention of the accused person throughout the time during which he or she and any co - accused were studying the file , even if the validity of the last detention order given by the judge had expired .

After drawing up and signing the final indictment , the public prosecutor 's office had to forward the file to the trial court ( Articles CARDINAL of the ORG ) . Within DATE of receiving the file , the trial court , without ruling on the accused 's guilt , had to decide whether the file provided a sufficient basis for committing the accused for trial , or whether the case should be referred back for further information or no further action should be taken .

As a rule , the order committing the accused for trial ( lēmums par apsūdzētā nodošanu tiesai ) was given by a single judge ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , who also had to rule on whether the preventive measure in place should be extended , amended or lifted . Where the judge considered that the preventive measure was justified , he confirmed it by means of a final decision . If , on the other hand , he had doubts as to the lawfulness of the measure or its justification , he convened a preparatory hearing ( rīcības sēde ) to examine the issue . The order given following the preparatory hearing was amenable to appeal before a higher court .

Under the terms of LAW ORG , “ consideration of the case at a hearing [ had to ] begin not DATE or , in exceptional cases , DATE from the date on which the court receive[d ] the file ” . However , this provision , which was a legacy from the NORP era and had never been amended , was very rarely complied with by the NORP courts .

In principle , once the order for the accused person 's continued detention had been given , the decision remained in force throughout the proceedings at first instance . In other words , before DATE , there was no limit on the length of detention on remand at this stage in the proceedings . The PERSON of DATE , which came into force on DATE and amended LAW ORG , set a limit of DATE and DATE on the period of detention , which ran from the time the trial court received the investigation file until delivery of the judgment at first instance . Once this time - limit had been exceeded , the detained person had to be released immediately .

Originally , however , if the case concerned “ particularly serious crimes involving violence or the threat of violence ” , the ORG of ORG could extend the term of detention beyond the maximum period . Following a Constitutional Court judgment of DATE which found part of this provision to be in breach of the LAW , ORG amended it by means of a LAW DATE which guaranteed the person concerned the right to submit his or her observations on an exceptional extension of this kind , and set out the individual 's procedural rights .

In practice , although the legislation contained no express provision enabling accused persons to appeal against detention at this stage , the courts considered all applications for release made by detainees . The response generally took the form of a simple letter , against which no appeal was possible . However , in more complex cases the court gave its decision in the form of an order ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

A Law amending Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , which came into force on DATE , introduced a right of appeal against orders imposing preventive measures at the judicial stage of the proceedings . However , the PERSON related only to the period after adversarial examination of the case had begun . Moreover , the right to appeal was subject to the condition that examination of the case had been adjourned for a minimum period of DATE . The appeal had to be lodged within DATE of the order being served and the court was required to consider it within DATE of receiving it .

Finally , the third paragraph in fine of Article CARDINAL stipulated that the accused could reiterate his or her request for release at the hearing on the merits .

The third paragraph of LAW ORG read as follows :

“ Defence counsel shall have the right to take cognisance of all the documents in the file and to copy out extracts from it by hand or using technical means :

( CARDINAL ) in cases where the accused are persons covered by LAW , points CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of the present Code [ minors or the physically or mentally disabled ] DATE from the time when the person concerned is placed under investigation ;

( CARDINAL ) in all other cases – from the time the person concerned is placed under investigation , with the consent of the investigating authority or the prosecutor ;

( CARDINAL ) in all cases – in the circumstances referred to in LAW [ on completion of the preliminary investigation and before the file is forwarded to the trial court ] . ”

DATE . The seventh paragraph of the same LAW prohibited the lawyer from disclosing information obtained during the proceedings . LAW of the ORG reinforced this duty of confidence , stating that information obtained during the preliminary investigation could be disclosed only with the permission of the head of the investigating authority or the prosecutor and only where the aforementioned authorities considered it practicable . If necessary , the prosecutor was required to remind the witnesses , victims , lawyers and other participants in the proceedings of the fact that failure to comply with this requirement rendered them criminally liable .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) gave judgment ordering a certain ORG to pay the applicant MONEY ( DEM ) . The judgment became final and enforceable on DATE .

On DATE the applicant sought enforcement of the above judgment . On DATE ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) issued an enforcement order . It decided to seize ORG 's movable property and sell it at a public auction . On DATE the applicant informed the court that he advanced the costs of the proceedings .

The court bailiff attempted to conduct the first on - site inspection on DATE , but ORG was not found on the address provided by the applicant . His parents , PERSON and PERSON , informed the bailiff that PERSON had not lived at that address for DATE .

The court scheduled another on - site inspection for DATE . However , the court bailiff could not enter ORG house , because it was locked . On DATE the applicant asked the court to set another date for the bailiff 's intervention with the assistance of the police and the locksmith . He also requested temporary seizure of ORG 's passport .

On DATE the court held a hearing . It invited the applicant to again advance the costs and scheduled another on - site inspection for DATE . The inspection again failed since ORG 's house was locked . On DATE the applicant requested the temporary seizure of S.R 's passport .

The court scheduled yet another on - site inspection for DATE , with the assistance of the police and a locksmith . On DATE , the court bailiff entered ORG house and seized the following movables : CARDINAL motorbikes , a lawnmower , a welding machine , a TV and a stereo . DATE , the applicant repeated his request for seizure of the passport .

On DATE the debtor 's parents as third parties filed an objection against the enforcement on the seized movables , claiming they were the owners of the seized property which could therefore not be the object of enforcement . On DATE the court invited the applicant to respond to the objection raised . DATE the applicant did so by contesting the third parties ' allegations .

NORP On DATE the applicant repeated his request for temporary seizure of ORG 's passport . Finally , on DATE the court dismissed the applicant 's motion in this respect . On appeal , on DATE the second - instance court upheld the first - instance decision finding that the seizure of the passport was not allowed under the legislation in force .

On DATE the court inquired with the police about ORG 's place of residence . The police replied that PERSON left for GPE .

Subsequently , on DATE the applicant invited the court to continue with the enforcement on the seized movables .

On DATE the court instructed ORG 's parents , to institute separate civil proceedings to declare the enforcement on the seized movables inadmissible . The third parties did so and it would appear that those proceedings are still pending .

The relevant part of CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE – “ LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning the applicant 's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the competent court must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”

Under the case - law of ORG , constitutional complaints lodged under section CARDINAL in the context of enforcement proceedings were to be declared inadmissible . In its decision no . U - IIIA/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG interpreted section CARDINAL as follows :

“ The Constitutional Court shall institute proceedings pursuant to a constitutional complaint lodged under section CARDINAL of LAW [ on FAC ] for the length of proceedings only in cases where the court has not decided within a reasonable time on the merits of the rights and obligations of the complainant , that is , where it has failed to deliver a decision on the merits within a reasonable time .

In the present case the constitutional complaint has been lodged for non - enforcement of a final decision by which the party 's rights and obligations had already been decided .

Taking into consideration the above cited provisions of LAW [ on LAW ] ... , ORG is of the opinion that in this case the conditions for applicability of section CARDINAL were not met . ”

In its decision no . U - IIIA/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE the ORG provided further interpretation of CARDINAL :

“ Taking into consideration the above cited provisions of LAW [ on ORG ] and the fact that the constitutional complaint was not lodged for a failure to deliver a decision within a reasonable time but rather because the enforcement was not carried out , ORG is of the opinion that in this case the conditions for applicability of CARDINAL were not met . ”

In decision no . U - IIIA/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG changed its practice , accepting a constitutional complaint and awarding compensation as well as ordering the competent court to conclude the enforcement proceedings within DATE from its decision . In doing so , ORG expressly relied on the ORG 's case - law on the matter .


LESOOCHRANÁRSKE ZOSKUPENIE VLK v. SLOVAKIA

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant association was established under NORP law in DATE and is registered in ORG .

NORP The applicant association was represented before the Court by Ms ORG , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

The applicant is an association under the Associations of Citizens Act ( Law no . CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) . It has its own legal personality , distinct from that of its members .

The preamble to its constitution states that the applicant association regards a forest as a living being that commands adequate respect ( clause CARDINAL ) , that the applicant association was established in order to save the natural forests of the planet , and that that salvation constitutes an essential duty of the current generation to future generations ( clause CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to LAW of its constitution , the applicant association ’s mission is to put into practice the ideas mentioned above , inter alia , by :

- direct action aimed at preventing the destruction of natural forests in particular ;

- representation of the legally recognised interests of its members in proceedings that touch upon the mission of the applicant association ;

- entering into decision - making processes that have an impact on forest economy activities , above all the creation of forest economy planning ;

- assistance in the preparation of documentation to determine the long - term goals and tasks of the forest economy and thereby contribute to enhancing the role of forests ; and

- detection of , and adequate reaction to , incidents involving a threat to health , property , nature and the environment .

NORP The applicant association considers its to fall under the category of “ public ” and “ concerned public ” , that is to say public affected or likely to be affected by , or with an interest in , environmental decision - making , within the meaning of LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW - making and ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) ( see “ Relevant international material ” below ) .

The High Tatra is a mountain range on the border between GPE and GPE . It is part of the LOC , which , together with the NORP Tatra LOC , form ORG ( “ the TANAP ” ) .

The TANAP and its territory are protected under the Nature and LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) ( “ the LAW ” ) and Government Directive no . QUANTITY , which established the TANAP .

The forest , land and resources located in the TANAP are administered by PERSON lesy TANAP - u ( “ GPE TANAP ” ) , a body established by ORG and linked to the national budget ( príspevková organizácia ) .

On DATE high winds in the area comprising the High Tatra caused substantial damage to the forest , inter alia in the areas comprising ORG of the PERSON and Tichá valleys .

Various administrative proceedings were held , mainly under LAW and LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) , in order to address the consequences of the disaster .

The applicant association made a number of requests to various authorities responsible for environmental protection that it be informed of any proceedings pending before such authorities concerning the protection of the environment . These included a request in reliance on LAW , made on DATE to ORG ; a request in reliance on LAW , made on or DATE to ORG ( Obvodný úrad životného prostredia ) ; and a request in reliance on LAW , made on DATE to ORG ( ORG lesný úrad ) .

As a result of the above - mentioned requests , the applicant association participated in some proceedings and sought to participate in others . Its participation was in the procedural capacity of a party ( účastník konania ) to or a participant ( zúčastnená PERSON ) in the proceedings , within the meaning of ORG DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) ( “ the ORG ” ) . As a general rule , unlike a party to proceedings , a participant has no right of appeal .

Further details concerning the applicant association ’s participation in the proceedings ensuing the natural disaster and the procedural status of parties and participants are set out below .

On DATE the PERSON branch of the FAC TANAP applied for a general derogation from the protective conditions applicable to the environment in the High Tatra , with a view to addressing the effects of the disaster . In so doing they also sought to obtain approval under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW ( as applicable at that time ) to interfere with forest coppice and to damage vegetation and soil cover in the areas affected by the disaster for the same purpose .

Under section CARDINAL ) of LAW , as applicable at that time , the applicant association had the status of a party to those proceedings . Following an amendment to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the procedural status of environmental associations such as the applicant association was reduced to that of a participant .

On DATE the ORG of the Environment ( PERSON úrad životného prostredia ) ruled that the application of GPE TANAP was subject to an environmental impact assessment ( ORG ) under LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended , which was replaced with effect from DATE by PERSON no . PERSON . ) and that the proceedings be stayed until GPE TANAP had submitted such an assessment .

On DATE the Prešov Regional Office of the Environment ruled that unless GPE TANAP submitted the final ORG by DATE , the proceedings would be discontinued .

On DATE the Prešov Regional Office of the Environment discontinued the proceedings because ŠL TANAP had failed to submit the final ORG . The decision was upheld on DATE by ORG following an appeal by GPE TANAP .

On DATE the LOC branch of LOC requested that the forestry authority concerned declare a state of emergency and take measures to reduce the risk of an outbreak of bark beetle in the forests of the PERSON and Tichá valleys .

Had the applicant association been invited to take part in the proceedings , it would have enjoyed the procedural status of a participant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) .

On DATE ORG ordered LOC to carry out preventive measures under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(i ) of the Forests Act with a view to reducing the risk of the spread of bark beetle in the forest of PERSON , in particular by cutting down infected trees in the wooded area affected by the disaster .

NORP The applicant association was not involved in the proceedings . The decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant association challenged the decision of DATE by way of a complaint under LAW to ORG ( Ústavný súd ) .

The applicant association argued that the impugned decision should have been preceded by a derogation from , or approval of , non - compliance with environment protection measures under LAW . If that had happened , the applicant association would have had the status of a party to the proceedings under LAW . However , the decision of DATE was taken without prior derogation or approval , and thus without the applicant association ’s involvement . This was contrary to the applicant association ’s right of access to court and justice , and to its constitutional right to a good environment .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It found that LAW accorded the applicant association the procedural status of a participant in , and not a party to , the proceedings in question .

That being recognised , ORG observed that the applicant association had had the opportunity to seek recognition of its position as a participant under the terms of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . However , it had failed to seize that opportunity as it had requested that it be informed of proceedings under LAW only on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that is to say after the end of the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , ORG noted that the applicant association had been directly concerned with the subject matter of the proceedings but had failed to assert a claim to that effect . If it had done so , it would have had the status of a party to the proceedings , which would have allowed it to challenge the impugned decision by lodging an administrative appeal and , as appropriate , seeking judicial review .

Finally , ORG held that the right to a good environment applied only to individuals and not to legal entities such as the applicant association , which therefore could not assert that right .

The decision was served on the applicant association on DATE .

The object of LAW is to determine the jurisdiction of the administrative and municipal bodies as well as the rights and duties of legal entities and individuals in protecting nature and landscape , with a view to contributing to the preservation of the diversity of conditions and forms of life on the LOC . It is also the object of the LAW to provide conditions for the sustaining , renewal and rational use of natural resources , protection of natural heritage , maintaining the character of landscape , and achieving and sustaining ecological stability ( section CARDINAL ) .

Unless provided otherwise , proceedings under the LAW are subject to the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ( see below ) .

Under section CARDINAL ) , as applicable until DATE , associations of citizens whose objective for DATE had been environmental protection had the status of parties to proceedings under the LAW , provided that they announced their participation within DATE of being informed of the proceedings .

A group of Members of ORG submitted a bill that was enacted with effect from DATE ( Law no . PERSON . ) amending LAW , inter alia , so that associations of citizens referred to under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW would have the status only of participants in proceedings .

Under section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , an association referred to in section CARDINAL ) can request that the authority concerned inform it of any administrative proceedings before that authority with potential implications for the protection of nature and the environment under the LAW . The authority is then duty bound to inform the association of any such proceedings within DATE of their commencement or , as the case may be , of the request .

On DATE ORG amended the environment legislation , including LAW . The amendment entered into force on DATE no . PERSON . Among other changes , environmental associations were again accorded the status of party to the proceedings ( amended section CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

It was acknowledged that the purpose of this change was , inter alia , to ensure that such associations had access to remedies under LAW of LAW and that , until that time , the applicable rules of procedure had lacked provisions for such access . It was also observed that , following the judgment of ORG of ORG of DATE in case no . C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see below ) , the jurisprudence of ORG had settled so as to interpret the applicable procedural rules in conformity with the NORP rules ( see judgment of ORG in case no . CARDINALSžpCARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and to accord the associations in question the procedural status of parties ( see report on the bill by ORG of ORG of that ORG , together with ORG ) .

The Forests Act defines forest land and its protection , determines the ownership of forest land and the use of forests , and governs professional management of forests , support for a sustainable forest economy , jurisdiction of the ORG administrative agencies and ORG supervision of forestry , and sets out sanctions for breaches of the LAW ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The purpose of the LAW is to preserve , develop and protect forests , to create the economic conditions for a diverse , professional and sustainable forest economy , and to ensure that the interests of society and those of forest owners are in harmony ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Unless provided for otherwise , proceedings under LAW are subject to the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ( see below ) .

Associations whose aim is linked to the use and protection of forest property are not parties to the proceedings . Nevertheless , they can act as participants in the proceedings provided that they announce their participation within DATE of being informed of the relevant proceedings ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , an association referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) can request that the authority concerned inform it of any administrative proceedings before that authority with potential implications for its interests , and the authority is duty bound to inform the association of any such proceedings within DATE of their commencement or , as the case may be , of the request .

A party to proceedings is a person whose rights and legally protected interests or duties are to be the subject matter of the proceedings or whose rights , legally protected interests or duties can be directly affected by the decision . A person who claims that his or her rights , legally protected interests or duties would be affected by the decision may also be a party to the proceedings , unless and until the opposite is established ( Article CARDINAL ) ) .

On DATE an amendment ( Law no . CARDINAL Coll . ) to LAW entered into force which , inter alia , introduced the procedural category of participant in the proceedings . Under LAW of the amended LAW , a lex specialis can stipulate the conditions in which someone other than a party to the proceedings has the right to take part in the proceedings in full or in part . That person is called a participant . Unless a lex specialis accords a participant further rights , his or her position is limited to the right to be notified when proceedings commence and of other submissions by the parties , the right to take part in an oral hearing and in an in situ inspection , and the right to adduce evidence and to add to the material underlying the decision .

The explanatory report ( dôvodová správa ) on the amendment submitted with the bill suggested that the creation of the procedural category of participant in administrative proceedings had been in response to the existing practice whereby , in particular in the area of environmental protection , associations of citizens and associations of legal entities took part in proceedings . Due to the lack of an appropriate procedural framework , for practical reasons such associations had been given the status of parties to the proceedings . However , that was contrary to the rules concerning parties , because the rights and duties of such associations had not been decided upon in the proceedings . Participation in the proceedings of persons other than the parties was advisable and would be significantly more frequent , especially in proceedings that involved public or group interests , for example in the construction of major industrial enterprises , the use of genetic technologies and the licensing of public works .

Chapter ( Časť ) CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) governs the administrative judiciary . In accordance with its provisions , administrative tribunals review the lawfulness of decisions taken by public administrative authorities on the basis of administrative - law actions under LAW ) CARDINAL of that LAW and administrative - law appeals under LAW of that LAW .

Judicial review of administrative decisions and procedures by way of administrative - law actions under LAW CARDINAL requires that the matter be resolved by a decision that has become final and binding ( právoplatnosť ) , after all ordinary remedies have been exhausted ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The parties to proceedings on administrative - law actions are the claimant and the defendant ( LAW ) , the former being the individual or the legal entity who alleges that , as a party to the relevant administrative proceedings , his , her or its rights have been restricted by the decision and conduct of an administrative authority . The claimant may , however , also file an administrative - law action on the grounds that he , she or it had not been treated as a party to the administrative proceedings in question when although he , she or it should have been ( LAW ) .

Details concerning ORG are set out below . ORG GPE agreed to accede to ORG on DATE and declared that , under LAW , the LAW has priority over LAW .

The Aarhus Convention was published in LAW under no . DATE and entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE .

In an unrelated set of proceedings , relying on ORG , the applicant association of the present case sought recognition of its standing as a party to proceedings concerning the request of a hunting association for derogation from certain provisions of LAW . The applicant association was unsuccessful before CARDINAL administrative and CARDINAL judicial level of jurisdiction .

The applicant association lodged an appeal with ORG . In dealing with that appeal , on DATE ORG asked ORG of ORG for a preliminary ruling on the following questions :

“ CARDINAL . Is it possible to recognise DATE and in particular LAW , given that the principal objective pursued by that international treaty is to change the classic definition of locus standi by according the status of a party to proceedings to the public , or the public concerned , as having the direct effect of an international treaty ( ‘ self - executing effect’ ) in a situation where ORG acceded to that international treaty on DATE but to date has not adopted Community legislation in order to transpose the treaty concerned into Community law ?

Is it possible to recognise DATE and in particular LAW , which has become a part of Community law , as having the direct applicability or direct effect of Community law within the meaning of the settled case law of ORG ?

If the answer to the first of the second question is in the affirmative , is it then possible to interpret LAW , given the principal objective pursued by that international treaty , as meaning that it is necessary also to include within the concept ‘ act of a public authority’ an act consisting in the delivery of decisions , that is to say , that the right of public access to judicial hearings intrinsically also includes the right to challenge the decision of an administrative body , the unlawfulness of which lies in its effect on the environment ?

The request was registered under file no . C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE Advocate General PERSON delivered an opinion with the following conclusions :

I therefore suggest that , in answer to the questions referred by the [ ORG ] , the ORG should rule as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The questions referred are inadmissible except in so far as they relate to LAW .

( CARDINAL ) It is for the national courts to determine whether Article CARDINAL ) of ORG has direct effect within their own legal order in circumstances in which ORG acceded to that international treaty on DATE but to date has not adopted legislation in order to incorporate that specific provision of the treaty concerned into ORG law in respect of the obligations that it imposes on the Member GPE .

( CARDINAL ) Article CARDINAL ) of ORG should be interpreted as including within the concept of ‘ act of a public authority’ an act consisting of the delivery of a decision . The right of public access to judicial review , within the constraints permitted by LAW , includes the right to challenge a decision of an administrative body which is alleged to contravene provisions of the Member ORG ’s national law relating to the environment .

If the ORG should take the view that it has jurisdiction to rule on the direct effect of LAW :

( CARDINAL ) Article CARDINAL ) of ORG does not have direct effect as a matter of GPE law . ”

On DATE the Grand Chamber of ORG of ORG delivered a judgment .

It held that

“ Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Convention on access to information , public participation in decision - making and access to justice in environmental matters approved on behalf of ORG of DATE does not have direct effect in ORG law . It is , however , for the referring court to interpret , to the fullest extent possible , the procedural rules relating to the conditions to be met in order to bring administrative or judicial proceedings in accordance with the objectives of Article GPE ) of that convention and the objective of effective judicial protection of the rights conferred by ORG law , in order to enable an environmental protection organisation , such as LOC , to challenge before a court a decision taken following administrative proceedings liable to be contrary to ORG environmental law .

On DATE , following the judgment of ORG of ORG of DATE ( see the preceding paragraph ) , ORG quashed the challenged administrative decisions and held that , on the basis of that judgment , and with a view to ensuring effective protection of the environment , the applicant association had the right of action against administrative decisions , which may be contrary to ORG law , and that , consequently , it was to be accorded the procedural status of a party ( file no . CARDINAL PERSON ) . This position has since become generally accepted .

ORG for LOC “ Convention on Access to Information , Public Participation in Decision - making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters ” ( ORG ) was adopted on DATE and entered into force on DATE .

In its Preamble , the Parties to the LAW , inter alia :

- recognise that

“ every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well - being , and the duty , both individually and in association with others , to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations ”

- consider that

“ to be able to assert this right and observe this duty , citizens must have access to information , be entitled to participate in decision - making and have access to justice in environmental matters , and acknowledge[s ] in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights ,

- recognise that

“ in the field of the environment , improved access to information and public participation in decision - making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions , contribute to public awareness of environmental issues , give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns ,

- and also recognise

“ the desirability of transparency in all branches of government and inviting legislative bodies to implement the principles of this LAW in their proceedings ” .

Article CARDINAL of LAW defines its objective and provides as follows :

“ In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well - being , each ORG shall guarantee the rights of access to information , public participation in decision - making , and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention . ”

Pursuant to LAW and DATE , which contain definitions , “ public ” means CARDINAL or more natural or legal persons , and , in accordance with national legislation or practice , their associations , organisations or groups , while “ concerned public ” means the public affected or likely to be affected by , or having an interest in , environmental decision - making . For the purposes of this definition , non - governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law are deemed to have an interest .

Article CARDINAL , which deals with public participation in decisions on specific activities , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Each Party :

( a ) Shall apply the provisions of this article with respect to decisions on whether to permit proposed activities listed in annex I ;

( b ) Shall , in accordance with its national law , also apply the provisions of this article to decisions on proposed activities not listed in annex I which may have a significant effect on the environment . To this end , Parties shall determine whether such a proposed activity is subject to these provisions ;

NORP The public concerned shall be informed , either by public notice or individually as appropriate , early in an environmental decision - making procedure , and in an adequate , timely and effective manner , inter alia , of :

( a ) The proposed activity and the application on which a decision will be taken ;

( b ) The nature of possible decisions or the draft decision ;

( d ) The envisaged procedure , including , as and when this information can be provided :

( i ) The commencement of the procedure ;

( ii ) The opportunities for the public to participate ;

NORP The public participation procedures shall include reasonable time frames for the different phases , allowing sufficient time for informing the public in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL above and for the public to prepare and participate effectively during the environmental decision - making .

Each ORG shall provide for early public participation , when all options are open and effective public participation can take place . ”

Article CARDINAL concerns access to justice and provides , inter alia , that :

“ CARDINAL . In addition and without prejudice to the review procedures referred to in DATE and QUANTITY above , each ORG shall ensure that , where they meet the criteria , if any , laid down in its national law , members of the public have access to administrative or judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment .

NORP In addition and without prejudice to paragraph CARDINAL above , the procedures referred to in DATE , CARDINAL above shall provide adequate and effective remedies , including injunctive relief as appropriate , and be fair , equitable , timely and not prohibitively expensive . Decisions under this article shall be given or recorded in writing . Decisions of courts , and whenever possible of other bodies , shall be publicly accessible . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW on review of compliance requires a meeting of the Parties to establish arrangements for reviewing compliance with LAW A Compliance Committee has been created for that purpose .

On DATE ORG adopted findings and recommendations upon completion of proceedings triggered by a non - governmental organisation that alleged that GPE had failed to comply with its obligations under LAW in connection with the construction of CARDINAL units of a nuclear power plant .

One of the disputed issues was whether a DATE construction permit was , in fact and substance , a new construction permit or rather , as treated for the purposes of the administrative proceedings at domestic level , an update of a previous construction permit of DATE .

In paragraph CARDINAL of its report , the ORG stressed that

“ although each ORG is given some discretion in [ these cases ] to determine where public participation is appropriate , the clause “ mutatis mutandis , and where appropriate ” [ used in LAW in relation to the use of the LAW in respect of reconsideration and update of existing operating conditions ] does not imply complete discretion for the ORG concerned to determine whether or not it was appropriate to provide for public participation ” .

The ORG rather considered , in paragraph CARDINAL of its report , that :

“ the clause ‘ where ORG introduces an objective criterion to be seen in the context of the goals of the Convention , recognizing that ‘ access to information and public participation in decision - making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions , contribute to public awareness of environmental issues , give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such PERSON and aiming to ‘ further the accountability of and transparency in decision - making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment’ . Thus , the clause does not preclude a review by the ORG on whether the above objective criteria were met and whether the ORG concerned should have therefore provided for public participation in the present case . ”

The ORG found , at paragraph CARDINAL , that :

“ when the authority reconsidered or updated the operating conditions for an activity of such a nature and magnitude , and being the subject of such serious public concern , as this nuclear power plant , with the changes and increased potential impact on the environment as presented to the ORG , public participation would have been appropriate . This conclusion is not countered by the fact that most , if not all , changes in the DATE construction permit lead to stricter requirements than those set in the DATE permit . Thus , by failing to provide for public participation according to article CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL , the ORG concerned failed to comply with article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW . ”

NORP However , dealing with a general question of the compatibility of the relevant NORP laws with the Convention , the ORG was unable to

“ conclude that NORP law on public participation and ORG in general also fails to comply with LAW . ”