Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants are :

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

ORG ( subsequently changed her name to ORG ) , born in DATE ; and

PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicants are NORP nationals and residents of the village of PERSON , GPE .

The first and second applicants are brothers of PERSON , who was born in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are his sisters - in - law .

At the time of the events described below the second to fourth applicants resided together with PERSON at CARDINAL Sverdlova Street in PERSON . The first applicant resided at CARDINAL Sverdlova Street in PERSON .

The account of the events described below is based on the information contained in the application form , a written statement by the first applicant made on DATE , a written statement by the second applicant dated DATE , a written statement by the fourth applicant dated DATE and a written statement by Mr PERSON ’s other brother , DATE , made on DATE .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE PERSON and the fourth applicant and her child were at home at CARDINAL Sverdlova Street .

At TIME two UAZ vehicles arrived at LOC . A group of armed men wearing masks emerged from the vehicles and burst into the courtyard . PERSON and the fourth applicant inferred that they belonged to the NORP security forces .

PERSON stepped out of the house into the courtyard and the servicemen apprehended and handcuffed him . According to the fourth applicant , PERSON showed no signs of resistance . Later on the servicemen took the handcuffed man back into the house .

According to the written statement of the fourth applicant , CARDINAL armed men levelled their guns at her and asked her where the weapons were . They searched the room where the fourth applicant was . CARDINAL of them tore down a carpet from the wall and checked everything in the room but found nothing .

The servicemen also searched the house and courtyard LOC without producing any warrant but found no arms . Then they took PERSON outside , forced him into CARDINAL of the UAZ vehicles and drove away .

NORP Immediately after PERSON arrest the first and second applicants pursued the ORG vehicles in a car , but in vain . They then visited the head of the local administration and told him that PERSON had been apprehended . The first and second applicants also went to the department of the interior of ORG ( “ the ROVD ” ) . The ROVD policemen told them that they had no information on PERSON whereabouts .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE a group of servicemen from ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) under the command of D.Ch . , an investigator of ORG , arrived at CARDINAL FAC and showed the second applicant a search warrant . They searched the house in the presence of CARDINAL servicemen of the military commander ’s office of GPE ( “ the military commander ’s office ” ) acting as attesting witnesses . D.Ch . asked the second applicant and PERSON other brother , ORG , whether there were any arms in the house ; they replied in the negative .

Having searched the rest of the house , the servicemen went to PERSON room . According to the second applicant , he observed CARDINAL of the servicemen stealthily place a grenade in his brother ’s bed . Later the servicemen noted in the search report that they had found an explosive device in PERSON room . The report was signed by the aforementioned attesting witnesses ; when signing it , the second applicant and ORG added that they had seen that the grenade had been planted by the servicemen .

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON was placed in the temporary detention facility of the ROVD . Later that day PERSON , a police officer of the ROVD , informed the applicants that PERSON had been transferred from ORG of ORG ( “ the LOC ” ) to the ROVD and that he was in very poor health .

The applicants went to the ROVD , where they met D.Ch . , the investigator who had commanded the ORG officers during the search of DATE . D.Ch . told them that PERSON was unwell , that he had been injured during his detention and had a broken rib because he had resisted the servicemen when being arrested .

On DATE ROVD officers invited a doctor to examine PERSON because his state of health was growing worse , but they did not allow his transfer to a hospital .

On DATE the applicants retained a lawyer , who visited PERSON at the ROVD . The lawyer considered that her client needed urgent medical assistance .

On DATE ( in some of the documents enclosed by the applicants this date is also given as CARDINAL May CARDINAL ) ORG held a hearing on the ORG request to extend the term of PERSON detention . The judge authorised the extension with reference to PERSON confession and the testimony of his coaccused TIME argued that he had incriminated himself under torture and showed the injuries on his body in the court room . However , that fact did not prompt any reaction on the part of the judge .

At some point on CARDINAL DATE ( in some of the documents enclosed by the applicants the date is referred to as CARDINAL DATE ) PERSON was transferred to the Urus - Martan district hospital ( “ the Urus - Martan hospital ” ) . The ROVD policemen guarded his ward . His brothers visited him and , unbeknown to the guards , took photographs of PERSON body .

The CARDINAL pictures submitted by the applicants to the ORG represent a man sitting on a bed , his tee - shirt pulled up . Numerous abrasions and bruises can be seen on the man ’s body , including his neck , wrists , arms , nipples , navel and a large bruise is visible on the right side of his lower back .

In the ORG submission , during their visits PERSON told his brothers what had happened to him after his arrest ( see below ) .

On DATE PERSON health deteriorated severely . He was spitting blood . The doctors said that they could not do anything for him and that he needed an artificial kidney . The applicants asked D.Ch . to authorise PERSON transfer to a hospital in GPE , ORG , which , apparently , was better equipped than that of ORG . D.Ch . refused , but sent military doctors from the military commander ’s office to examine the detainee . The military doctors measured PERSON blood pressure and examined the X - ray pictures . After the check - up D.Ch . authorised PERSON transfer to ORG . However , PERSON relatives were not provided with an ambulance and had to pay MONEY to hire CARDINAL . D.Ch . told the ROVD policemen to accompany PERSON , but they refused . The detainee was transported to Nazran unguarded .

At TIME on DATE , shortly after his arrival at FAC , PERSON died .

On an unspecified date PERSON was buried by his relatives .

In the applicants’ submission , PERSON described to his brothers the events DATE as follows .

When the servicemen apprehended PERSON on DATE , they put a plastic bag over his head and forced him down on the floor of the UAZ vehicle . They drove for a while and arrived at the military commander ’s office . They took the detainee to the third floor where , according to the applicants , the ORG headquarters were located .

Without taking the plastic bag off his head , the ORG officers ordered PERSON to tell them “ everything he knew ” . He said that he had nothing to tell . They then gave him several documents to sign , which he refused to do . After that the officers turned on a tape recorder and some of them left the room . Those who remained kicked and beat PERSON with truncheons and tortured him with electric shocks and cigarette burns . Among other things , they applied electric wires to his genitals and passed the current through them .

The servicemen asked PERSON to disclose his sources of income . He replied that he was buying and reselling scrap . They beat him again and ordered him to sign the documents . PERSON asked what the documents were . After that the servicemen put another plastic bag over his head and continued to torture him . At some point they filled his mouth with a foul - smelling liquid and forced him to drink it . The torture of PERSON continued throughout the whole night .

On DATE PERSON agreed to sign the documents and did so without reading them . He was then transferred to the temporary detention facility of the ROVD .

An excerpt from PERSON medical record issued by ORG hospital and dated DATE mentioned the following injuries :

“ ... numerous bruises , abrasions and electrical burns to the body , upper and lower limbs , peritonitis

Blunt trauma of the chest [ and ] the abdominal cavity . Injuries to the lungs and internal organs ; major bruising of the thorax , the front abdominal wall and the upper limbs . First - degree burns of the nipples . Contusion of the internal organs ? Broken ribs on the left side . ”

According to the death certificate issued by the GPE civil registry office and dated DATE , PERSON death was caused by acute renal insufficiency , anuria and pulmonary oedema , as well as by blunt injuries to the abdomen and chest and broken ribs on the left - hand side .

On DATE ORG of the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against TIME on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups and terrorist activities . The investigation established that a group including TIME , PERSON and other members had on several occasions blown up vehicles of the NORP federal forces . It appears that the case file was assigned the number CARDINAL . In some of the documents it is also referred to as no . CARDINAL .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON was arrested on suspicion of having participated in illegal armed groups and carried out terrorist activities .

On DATE he was interviewed in the presence of counsel and stated that he was unable to testify owing to his bad state of health .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case applied to ORG , seeking authorisation to search PERSON home . The request was granted on DATE , following which the authorities searched PERSON house and found a hand grenade there .

On DATE the Urus - Martan Town Court granted the ORG request and ordered PERSON placement in custody . In the Government ’s submission , he did not complain about illtreatment at the hearing on his detention .

On DATE PERSON was admitted for in - patient treatment to the surgery department of ORG hospital .

On DATE , following a decision of an investigator of ORG of the ORG and the recommendations of the doctors of ORG hospital , PERSON was transferred to the FAC where he died on DATE .

According to the death certificate of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON was admitted to the intensive care unit of ORG from ORG hospital with the diagnosis : blunt trauma of the chest and the abdomen , broken ribs on the left - hand side , major bruising of the body , oedema of the lungs , acute renal insufficiency . The death was recorded at TIME on DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE . discontinued criminal proceedings against PERSON in view of his death . The decision stated that on DATE a criminal investigation had been opened in respect of TIME , who was suspected of terrorist activities and participation in illegal armed groups . The case was assigned the number CARDINAL . The investigation established that in DATE TIME , together with several persons , including PERSON , had blown up several vehicles of the NORP military . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON was arrested and placed in the temporary detention facility of the department of the interior of GPE . At some point PERSON confirmed his involvement in the explosions and DATE testified against him . On DATE PERSON was transferred to hospital and died .

On DATE the first applicant requested ORG of GPE and the prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( “ the NORP prosecutor ’s office ” ) to institute criminal proceedings against the servicemen of ORG in relation to the torture which had caused PERSON death . The first applicant described in detail the circumstances of his brother ’s arrest and detention and the treatment to which he had been subjected while in custody . He insisted that PERSON had been arrested on CARDINAL and not CARDINAL DATE , as stated in the official documents , and that a number of witnesses , including the neighbours of the GPE and the deputy head of the local administration , GPE , could confirm that fact . In support of his submissions he enclosed the death certificate dated DATE , mentioning numerous injuries sustained by his brother , and the pictures of his body bearing marks of torture , taken during his visit to the hospital . He averred that although at the hearing on DATE his brother had complained about the torture and shown the judge the marks of ill - treatment on his body , ORG had disregarded his complaints and ordered his placement in custody . The first applicant stressed that , despite PERSON grave condition , the authorities had not authorised his transfer to a proper hospital until DATE .

The first applicant further stated that on DATE the ORG officers had unlawfully searched PERSON home , without providing any further details . He also submitted that during a sweeping operation in PERSON carried out on DATE , servicemen of the federal forces had harassed PERSON other brothers by taking them to the outskirts of the village , interviewing them about ball bearings they had at home and making a video recording of the interview . The first applicant stated that the ORG servicemen who had tortured his brother were still working in ORG and that he considered that PERSON relatives , as witnesses to the crime committed by the ORG officers , were in danger . Accordingly , he requested that the authorities provide for their protection . The first applicant also stressed that although the authorities had been made aware of the torture by DATE , PERSON relatives had no information as to whether this fact had prompted the opening of an investigation into the torture . Lastly , he requested that he be admitted to any subsequent criminal proceedings as a victim .

DATE . On DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office forwarded the first applicant ’s request to the prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) and ordered that the request be included in the investigation file in case no . CARDINAL and that the applicants’ submissions be examined and they be informed of any decisions taken by DATE .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that it had examined his complaint and had decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the ORG officers . The refusal to institute criminal proceedings was enclosed in the letter and , in so far as relevant , stated as follows :

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office received the [ first applicant ’s ] request to institute criminal proceedings against ORG officers ... The complaint alleges that upon admission to the district ORG was tortured with electric wires , beaten up and made to sign unspecified documents ...

Following the examination of the submissions contained in the complaint it has been established :

On DATE ... PERSON was arrested in the village of PERSON ... in connection with the proceedings in criminal case no . CARDINAL ... During his arrest PERSON offered resistance and the officers of the district division of the ORG had to apply physical force . According to statements of servicemen of the CARDINALth military commander ’s office of ORG ... E.L. and GPE . , on DATE they were invited to participate as attesting witnesses in a search of the Isayevs’ home in the village of PERSON .... The investigator conducted the search in accordance with all requirements of LAW . When it was established that PERSON felt unwell , he was provided with medical assistance and on DATE he was transferred for in - patient treatment to a medical institution .

The fact of torture in respect of PERSON is not confirmed by the materials in the criminal file . From the materials of criminal case no . DATE ... it appears that suspect PERSON offered resistance to the law - enforcement officers during his transfer , as a result of which physical force was applied to him and he sustained numerous injuries .

Under LAW of GPE , inflicting of harm on a person who has committed a crime while arresting him with a view to having him brought before law - enforcement authorities and in order to prevent him from committing further offences , if there are no other means of arresting such person and if the use of force is not excessive , does not constitute a crime .

Accordingly , the actions of the officers of ORG of the ORG , who arrested PERSON ... did not constitute a crime under LAW ... ”

The decision stated that it was open to appeal to a higher - ranking prosecutor or a court under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

By a letter of DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant , in reply to his complaint of DATE , that the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the ORG officers on DATE . The letter stated that on CARDINAL DATE the Urus - Martan ORG had authorised PERSON detention on remand on suspicion of terrorist activities and participation in illegal armed groups . At the time of the arrest PERSON had hit the ORG servicemen in attempting to escape and , in return , the servicemen had used force and injured him . Accordingly , their actions could be classified as use of force in excess of their powers within the meaning of LAW of LAW Criminal Code . Nevertheless LAW of the NORP Federal PERSON on the Suppression of Terrorism authorised the injuring or killing of terrorists if necessary . The letter concluded that there had been no grounds for prosecuting the ORG servicemen . The letter did not mention that it contained any enclosures , including the decision of DATE , and there is no indication that the applicants were provided with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office forwarded the materials concerning the death of PERSON to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE for examination .

On DATE criminal proceedings against PERSON were discontinued owing to his death and on DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE forwarded the materials of file no . CARDINAL to the district prosecutor ’s office for further investigation . There the case file was assigned the number PERSON .

On DATE the deputy military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the officers of ORG , finding no evidence of crime . The decision stated that the head of ORG and his subordinates had been in charge of PERSON arrest . During his arrest he had attempted to escape and had offered resistance , hitting unspecified ORG officers . The latter had applied physical force to restrain him , as a result of which he had sustained bodily injuries . The above account of events was confirmed by the explanations of ORG officers ORG and PERSON .

On DATE the acting prosecutor of the Urus - Martan district set aside the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the ORG officers and ordered that an additional inquiry be conducted . The Government failed to specify which refusal to institute criminal proceedings had been quashed on DATE but it appears that they referred to the decision by the military prosecutor issued on DATE .

On DATE an unspecified authority ( apparently the district prosecutor ’s office ) refused to institute criminal proceedings against the officials of the temporary detention facility of the ROVD on suspicion of abuse of authority ( LAW ) , finding no evidence of crime . On DATE the materials concerning the use of force by the officers of ORG against PERSON were transferred for examination to the military prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the deputy military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL refused to institute criminal proceedings against the ORG officers , finding no evidence of crime in their actions . The related decision stated that during his arrest PERSON had offered resistance to the ORG officers , following which they had had to apply physical force to restrain him .

On DATE the deputy ORG set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE and forwarded the relevant materials for examination to the investigative department of ORG with ORG of GPE .

On an unspecified date the relevant materials , as well as a report on the discovery of evidence of crime ( “ рапорт об обнаружении признаков преступления ” ) were forwarded to the head of the military investigating department of ORG ( “ the investigating department of the UGA ” ) for examination .

On DATE the investigating department of the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the ORG officers under LAW § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( c ) ( abuse of office associated with the use of violence and entailing serious consequences ) . The case was assigned the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

In the ORG ’s submission , the investigation in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL is pending .

Despite the ORG ’s repeated requests , the ORG refused to produce any documents from the case file concerning the investigation of the death of PERSON or the case files related to the inquiries into his death conducted by the district prosecutor ’s office or the prosecutor of military unit no . DATE . They referred to LAW .

In the applicants’ submission , on several occasions D.Ch . invited the PERSON brothers to his office for questioning . They did not specify the dates of those interviews or their subject matter .

On DATE the NORP military carried out a sweeping operation in the village of PERSON . PERSON and the second applicant were seized and taken to a military base where the servicemen questioned them about ball bearings found in their house . PERSON and PERSON explained that they used the ball bearings in their work and denied any involvement in illegal activities . They recognised a serviceman who was filming the interrogation as one who had searched their house on DATE .

On an unspecified date D.Ch . questioned the second applicant as a witness . In the second applicant ’s submission , the ORG officer pressured him in the course of the questioning . The second applicant provided no further details concerning the alleged pressure put on him .

On DATE the head of the Goy - Chu village local administration , PERSON , allegedly called the first applicant to his office and asked him whether he had complained about his brother ’s death to ORG . When the first applicant replied in the affirmative , PERSON told him that his complaint to ORG might lead to dangerous consequences and advised him to turn for help to PERSON , an official of the administration of ORG .

DATE . On an unspecified date the first applicant talked to PERSON and the latter advised him to withdraw the complaint , implying that the ORG servicemen might take revenge against the first applicant and other relatives of PERSON . The first applicant replied that it was not possible to withdraw the complaint , which had been sent to GPE and PERSON . PERSON told him that if the FAC stopped complaining about Zelimkhan ’s death they would have no further problems with the ORG ; the first applicant promised not to file any more complaints or appeals .

In the applicants’ submission , when they received the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE and the letter of DATE , they did not dare to take any further steps to challenge those decisions in view of the facts described above .

The Government furnished copies of CARDINAL written statements by PERSON dated DATE and DATE .

According to those documents , PERSON stated that he had been working in the local administration of ORG since DATE and that he remembered PERSON arrest in DATE on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups . However , PERSON had no information on his fate . PERSON relatives had not applied to him in that connection and thus he could not have brought pressure to bear on them or forced them to refrain from lodging complaints against law - enforcement officials . At the material time , owing to a complicated situation in the region , there were many similar cases and PERSON always assisted the residents of the LOC district in obtaining information on the fate of their relatives and the reasons for their detention . According to PERSON , PERSON could not have influenced the applicants either , because he was not a law - enforcement officer and thus had no reason to do so .

Abuse of office associated with the use of violence and entailing serious consequences carries a punishment of CARDINAL to ten years’ imprisonment and a ban on occupying certain positions for DATE ( LAW ( a , c ) of LAW of GPE ( “ LAW ” ) ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Law CARDINAL-FZ of DATE , with further amendments ) , as in force at the material time , provided that , in accordance with the legislation and within the limits established by it , damage could be caused to the life , health and property of terrorists , as well as to other legally - protected interests , in the course of an anti - terrorist operation . Servicemen , experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism were exempted from liability for such damage under NORP law . PERSON was abolished in DATE .

Under LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , a prosecutor can examine a complaint concerning actions or omissions of various officials in charge of a criminal investigation . Once a complaint is examined , the complainant should be informed of its outcome and of possible avenues of appeal against the prosecutor ’s decision .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that a decision of an investigator or a prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings , as well as other decisions , acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice are open to appeal before a district court . The district court can examine the lawfulness and well - foundedness of the impugned decision , act or omission . Following the examination of the complaint , the district court is empowered to declare the decision , act or omission unlawful or unfounded and order the authority to rectify the shortcomings ( LAW ) .

DATE . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG prohibits the disclosure of details of the preliminary investigation . Such information can be disclosed only with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and in the amount determined by them , and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the parties to the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation ( LAW ) .

Under LAW of LAW of GPE , a ORG agency or a ORG official is liable towards a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Such damage is to be compensated for at the expense of the federal or regional treasury .


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

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

The applicant ’s first wife died on DATE . They had CARDINAL children from the marriage born in DATE and DATE . In DATE the applicant applied for widows’ benefits and was informed that he was not entitled to these benefits as he was a man .

On DATE the applicant married his second wife . She died on DATE , leaving CARDINAL child born in DATE . He has been in receipt of income support since DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits was made in DATE and was rejected in DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman .

On DATE the applicant reapplied for widows’ benefits and on CARDINAL DATE he was informed that the benefits agency refused to consider his claim . By a letter of DATE the applicant challenged this rejection . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE he was informed that his only redress was by way of judicial review in ORG . The applicant initiated judicial review proceedings which were dismissed on DATE . The applicant appealed and on DATE , ORG accepted that his Convention rights had been breached but did not award damages . Both parties appealed and on CARDINAL DATE ORG accepted that the applicant ’s Convention rights had been infringed . However it rejected his claims because the Secretary of ORG had no power to make extra - statutory payments .

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


Violation of P1-1 (one applicant);Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated CARDINAL plots of land belonging to the applicants , for the construction of a dam .

On DATE , following the first applicant ’s request for increased compensation for the plot no . CARDINAL , ORG awarded him MONEY ( TRL ) of additional compensation , plus an interest at the statutory rate , as of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE TRL CARDINAL and GPE CARDINAL were paid to the applicant respectively .

On DATE the second applicant filed a similar request with ORG , regarding the plot no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the court accepted the applicant ’s request for increased compensation and awarded her TRL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL of additional compensation , plus an interest at the statutory rate , as of DATE . On DATE and DATE , ORG and TRL CARDINAL were paid to the applicant respectively .

The relevant domestic law and practice are outlined in the Aka v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , and ORG v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports CARDINAL-IV , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava II ORG . He claimed reimbursement of a purchase price .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant 's right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated , awarded him the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at that time as just satisfaction , ordered the court concerned to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant 's legal costs .

On CARDINAL DATE the district court delivered a judgment .

On DATE ORG , on the defendant 's appeal , quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case for further examination to the district court .

On DATE the district court delivered a judgment . Following the defendant 's appeal , the proceedings are pending before ORG .


Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel);Violation of P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in GPE , which she had let to GPE

In a registered letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease expiring on DATE and asked her to vacate the LOC by DATE .

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , ORG upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by DATE .

On DATE , the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises .

On DATE , she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself .

DATE and DATE the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession .

Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession .

On DATE the applicant was granted police assistance in evicting her tenant ; on DATE , however , the latter claimed to be ill and no officially appointed doctor was available to check her allegations . The bailiff arranged to make his next visit to the premises on DATE . However , on that occasion the applicant was not granted police assistance and the tenant refused to vacate the LOC , as she was about to have a council flat allocated to her . On DATE , the tenant produced a document from the council stating that she would have the flat from DATE .

On DATE , the tenant vacated the premises .

The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment ORG GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V , to be published .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in colony no . CARDINAL in FAC .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . He was suspected of unlawful possession of firearms and CARDINAL robberies of local post offices , as well as robbery , triple murder and attempted murder of security officers transporting money . It appears that the applicant was informed of his procedural rights , including the privilege against self - incrimination . The investigator interviewed him in the presence of a lawyer ; the applicant made admissions in relation to the above offences . A search was carried out of the applicant 's garage and another location indicated by the applicant ; certain evidence such as coins , guns and gun cartridges were seized . On DATE one of the victims identified the applicant in a line - up procedure as the alleged perpetrator .

On DATE the applicant was brought before a judge of ORG of PERSON . Having heard the parties , the district judge authorised the applicant 's continued detention on account of the admissions , the identification of the applicant by one of the victims and the evidence seized . The judge excluded any less intrusive preventive measure on account of the number and gravity of the offences of which the applicant was suspected and the risk that he would reoffend or abscond .

The applicant 's detention was examined again on DATE and he was remanded in custody on the same grounds . The judge also referred to the applicant 's personality and that he “ had committed several criminal offences within a short period of time ” . Lastly , the judge noted that the period asked for ( DATE ) by the investigating authority was justified by the need to carry out specific investigative measures and to obtain CARDINAL expert reports .

According to an out - patient psychiatric report dated CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had symptoms of “ an accentuated personality ” prone to gambling ; however , this condition was not considered as requiring treatment or entailing any legal consequences ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At a remand hearing on DATE the applicant chose to remain silent ; his counsel made no comment on the prosecution 's extension request . The judge extended the applicant 's detention with reference to the number and gravity of the charges , and the risk that he would abscond or interfere with the course of the investigation .

The investigator applied for a further extension on DATE . The judge heard the applicant and his counsel , none of whom objected to the remand request , referring to their wish to continue the study of the case file . The judge granted the prosecutor 's request , referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that the applicant would abscond , reoffend or interfere with the course of the proceedings . A further detention order was issued on DATE . The applicant and his counsel raised no objection to the extension request .

On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was listed for trial before ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) . The selection of a jury panel was carried out DATE . DATE and DATE the jury heard evidence and witnesses . On an unspecified date the applicant retracted statements that he had made previously . On DATE the jury found the applicant guilty as charged .

On DATE ORG approved the applicant 's detention for a further DATE , referring to the gravity of the charges and the need to complete the trial .

On DATE the trial judge sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment . Thereafter and until DATE the parties studied the trial record and submitted their objections to it .

The applicant appealed against the verdict , considering that the composition of the jury panel had been unlawful because the next of kin of some jurors had criminal records , which under the applicable legislation should have prevented those jurors from sitting on a panel .

NORP In DATE the case was sent to ORG . DATE and DATE the applicant submitted further statements of appeal . After the applicant 's unsuccessful attempts , in DATE ORG itself sought to obtain further particulars on the criminal records of jurors ' next of kin .

On DATE ORG set the verdict aside on account of irregularities in the jury selection procedure , including the above issue of next - of - kin convictions . However , the appeal court rejected the remaining points of appeal as unfounded . Lastly , it indicated without further reasons that “ the preventive measure ( detention ) in respect of the applicant should be maintained ” .

The retrial started on CARDINAL DATE . ORG held a hearing and decided that “ the applicant should remain in custody ” . Subsequently , ORG held that there had been no need for the decision of CARDINAL DATE . Noting that the applicant did not challenge his detention , ORG stated that , in any event , the question of remand had already been determined in the decision of DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG held a remand hearing . It appears that the applicant and his counsel made no comment on the prosecution 's request , leaving the matter to the ORG 's discretion . The judge granted an extension with reference to the gravity of the charges and the risk that the applicant would abscond or interfere with the course of the proceedings .

Further extensions were issued on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On each occasion ORG considered that the reasons referred to since the order of CARDINAL DATE remained valid , namely , the risk that the applicant would abscond , reoffend or interfere with the course of the proceedings , supported by the gravity of the charges against the applicant .

On DATE the trial judge ordered a further extension . He rejected the applicant 's arguments that were based on the considerable length of detention , his permanent residence and the need to take care of an underage child . The judge stated that the length of detention was not a matter to be taken into account for the remand , and that the reasons for it were still valid . Another remand decision in similar terms was issued on DATE .

The jury selection procedure lasted from DATE to DATE . On DATE the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts except for unlawful procurement and possession of gun cartridges .

On DATE an in - patient psychiatric report was commissioned . Remand orders were issued on DATE and DATE . The report was issued in DATE .

On DATE ORG held a remand hearing . The applicant did not attend because he had been admitted to a GPE hospital for the in - patient forensic examination . However , he was represented at that hearing by counsel who consented to proceed without the applicant being present . The remand judge extended the applicant 's detention indicating that “ the applicant had been charged with and found guilty by a jury of particularly serious offences and risked a heavy sentence of imprisonment ” . Thus , the judge concluded that the applicant would abscond if at large and would thus obstruct the proceedings .

On CARDINAL DATE the trial judge upheld the jury verdict and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment . As follows from the trial judgment , the applicant underwent an in - patient examination by psychiatrists who concluded that he had a serious addiction to gambling ; that at the time of the offences he had been unable to fully comprehend the dangerousness of his actions ; and that at the time of the psychiatrists ' report he had needed no compulsory medical treatment ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . While accepting the report in evidence , the trial judge considered that the applicant was legally liable for the relevant offences .

On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of CARDINAL DATE . It refused the applicant leave to be present at the appeal hearing or to participate in it by way of a video link .

On DATE ORG examined the parties ' appeals and ordered a retrial because one of the jurors had a mental illness , which under the applicable legislation prevented him from sitting as a juror . Referring to the gravity of the charges , the appeal court held that the applicant should remain in detention pending the retrial .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention noting that the retrial was pending . It considered that there was a risk of the applicant fleeing justice on account of ( i ) the gravity of the criminal offences leading , if convicted , to long custodial sentences or life imprisonment ; ( ii ) the fact that the applicant had been previously subject to criminal prosecution for unspecified offences . The judge also referred to the DATE psychiatric report concluding that the applicant had a serious addiction to gambling which had led to changes in his social , family and professional behaviour and to his being prone to unlawful conduct . In addition to the above , the judge held as follows :

“ On the facts of the case , including the nature of the offences ( several robberies and murders) ... related to the [ the applicant 's ] passion for gambling , which in its turn led to the incurring of debts and misappropriation of property , the ORG concludes that a less intrusive preventive measure would allow the applicant to resume his criminal activity and the damage caused to the public interest would manifestly exceed the damage related to the limitation inherent in the deprivation of liberty .

The ORG has taken due account of the fact that [ the applicant ] has a permanent place of residence , provided positive accounts from his employer and has an underage child in his care .

This detention order is based on the persistence of the circumstances justifying the initial arrest and detention . No sufficient reasons for varying the preventive measure have been adduced . ”

On DATE the trial judge returned the case to the prosecutor to amend the list of evidence to be presented at the trial . The judge also upheld the applicant 's continued detention on account of the risk that he would reoffend ( based on the gravity of the offences and eventual sentences , as well as the previous prosecution against the applicant ) . On DATE ORG set aside the part of the decision of DATE relating to the remittal but upheld the detention .

On DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention on the same grounds as were given in the order of DATE .

The trial resumed on DATE . On DATE the jury convicted the applicant as charged . On DATE the trial judge sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the conviction on CARDINAL count and upheld the remainder of the verdict and the sentence . It appears that the applicant obtained a copy of the appeal decision on an unspecified date in DATE .

Pursuant to LAW , detention of an accused pending investigation should not exceed DATE . It may , however , be extended to DATE . Further extensions to up to DATE are possible only in relation to persons accused of serious or very serious criminal offences , in view of the complexity of the case and if there are grounds justifying detention . An investigator 's request for extension must be approved by the regional prosecutor ( § CARDINAL ) . Further extension of detention beyond DATE and DATE may be authorised only in exceptional circumstances in respect of persons accused of very serious offences , upon an investigator 's request approved by ORG or his deputy ( § CARDINAL ) . Extension of detention beyond DATE is prohibited and the detainee must be released , unless the court decides to extend his detention to the date when the accused has finished studying the case file and the case has then been submitted for trial ( § § CARDINAL and DATE ( CARDINAL ) ) . After the completion of the investigation , an accused kept in detention must be provided with access to the case file DATE preceding the expiry of the maximum period of detention indicated in DATE and CARDINAL ( § CARDINAL ) . If such access was given later than that , the detainee must be released after the expiry of the maximum period of detention ( § CARDINAL ) . If the DATE time - limit was complied with , but was insufficient for the accused , the investigator , with the approval of the regional prosecutor , may request the court to extend the accused 's detention . Such a request should be submitted DATE before the expiry of the maximum detention period ( § CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW , after a criminal case has been submitted for trial to a court , the latter may , on the party 's request or proprio motu , vary or annul a measure of restraint in respect of the defendant , including placement in custody or detention pending trial . The period of detention pending trial can not normally exceed DATE from the date when the case was submitted to a court and up to delivery of a judgment in the case . However , after the expiry of that period the trial court may extend the detention of a defendant charged with a serious or very serious offence . Each extension must not exceed DATE .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 5-4;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with assault causing bodily harm on the ground that he had hit a neighbour . On DATE ORG Okresný súd ) issued a penal order by which the applicant was conditionally sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Upon the applicant ’s complaint ORG quashed the penal order and scheduled a hearing in the case .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG . It was adjourned because of the applicant ’s misbehaviour . A further hearing was held on DATE . As the applicant did not behave properly , the judge ordered him to be removed from the court building . The hearing was held in his absence . The applicant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm . A conditional CARDINAL months’ prison sentence was imposed . On DATE ORG ( PERSON súd ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG úrad vyšetrovania ) charged the applicant with contempt of court , allegedly committed on DATE during the first hearing before ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant in the context of the criminal proceedings . The applicant submitted a certificate from a NORP doctor dated DATE and refused to be examined as an out - patient .

On DATE and DATE the applicant sought redress from ORG ( Ústavný súd ) alleging that the criminal proceedings were unfair , including the order for his psychiatric examination . By letter of ORG of DATE he was informed that ORG is not superior to the police , prosecutor or ordinary courts and that it is not an appellate body in the ordinary court system . He was further informed that ORG has no jurisdiction to change or quash the decisions of ordinary courts or to interfere with their jurisdiction and that judicial decisions can be remedied by the means and according to the procedures prescribed by law .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG had ordered that the applicant be detained for observation in a mental hospital pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The applicant received the decision on DATE , and on DATE he challenged it .

On DATE the mental hospital summoned the applicant to be admitted on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was handcuffed and escorted by the police to the mental hospital . No warrant was presented . The applicant stayed in the mental hospital until DATE . From DATE he was granted leave .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife complained to ORG that on DATE the applicant had been confined in the mental hospital although he had appealed against ORG order of DATE . She claimed that the applicant ’s detention in the mental hospital was unlawful .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against ORG order of DATE . The decision was notified to ORG on DATE . It was not served on the applicant .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant ’s wife on DATE , ORG informed her that her complaint had been referred , for reasons of competence , to ORG .

On DATE the prosecution for contempt of court was stayed in the light of the experts’ conclusion that the applicant suffered from a permanent personality disorder which had prevented him from controlling his behaviour during the hearing before ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s wife that her complaint of CARDINAL DATE had been sent , for reasons of competence , to ORG . The applicant and his wife received no further information in this respect .

By virtue of LAW ) , ORG may commence proceedings upon a petition ( podnet ) presented by an individual or a corporation claiming that their rights have been violated .

DATE ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provide that personal liberty of every individual shall be guaranteed and no one shall be prosecuted or deprived of liberty unless for reasons and by methods set by law . According to LAW ( CARDINAL ) , a person may be committed to or held in a health - care institution without his or her consent only in cases specified by law . Such cases shall be reported to a court within TIME and the court shall decide within DATE . According to LAW , “ a psychological examination of a person charged with an offence is permissible only upon a written court order ” .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides for the appointment , upon a written order by the court , of CARDINAL psychiatric experts when there is a need to examine the mental health of the accused . Pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) , if the mental health of the accused can not be examined in any other way , the court can order detention for observation in an institution . The order can be challenged by a complaint which has suspensive effect .

According to Section CARDINAL , the accused has a right , at any time in the course of the investigation , to request the rectification of defects in the investigator ’s procedure . Such a request , to which no statute of limitation applies , must be submitted immediately to the public prosecutor who is required to deal with it without delay , and to inform the accused about the finding of the review .

In the judgment No . I ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG , sitting in a chamber of CARDINAL judges , ordered the release of a patient confined in a mental establishment without his consent . In this case , the patient had been detained for DATE without any authorisation by a competent ordinary court . He alleged a violation of LAW ) of the LAW and ORG considered the matter in the light of LAW . This judgment was not included in LAW ( ORG nálezov a uznesení ) published by ORG and comprising decisions which the plenary session of ORG considers important from the legal point of view . The judgment has been neither confirmed nor developed subsequently .

In its subsequent practice ORG has consistently held that it is not an appellate body in the ordinary court system and that it has no jurisdiction to interfere with proceedings before ordinary courts or to quash their decisions .


CASE OF STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Following complaints from ORG ( PERSON national des entreprises de second œuvre ) that large construction firms were engaging in certain illegal practices , GPE 's central government authorities instructed ORG to carry out a large - scale administrative investigation into the conduct of public - works contractors .

In a memorandum dated CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG DATE a body attached to the Competition and ORG , which on DATE became ORG , ORG ( “ the DGCCRF ” ) – provided the officials responsible at inter - département level with details of the planned investigation into the conduct of roadworks contractors in local tendering procedures . Appended to the memorandum was a list of companies to be inspected , either at their head office or at local branch offices , in CARDINAL départements . The list included the CARDINAL applicant companies .

On DATE inspectors from the DGCCRF carried out simultaneous raids on CARDINAL companies without authorisation from the companies ' management and seized CARDINAL documents . At DATE , on DATE , they conducted further inquiries with a view to obtaining statements .

On each occasion the inspectors entered the applicant companies ' LOC under the provisions of Ordinance no . DATE of DATE , which did not require any judicial authorisation . While carrying out the raids , the inspectors seized various documents containing evidence of unlawful agreements relating to certain contracts that did not appear in the list of contracts concerned by the investigation .

On DATE , on the basis of those documents , the Minister for Economic Affairs , Finance and Privatisation asked ORG ( which became ORG after the entry into force of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) to investigate certain acts which , in his opinion , amounted to collusion between separate firms , artificial competition between firms belonging to CARDINAL and the same group in local tendering procedures for roadworks contracts , and agreements restricting competition in the operation of mixing plants .

On DATE ORG was additionally asked by the head of the DGCCRF to investigate acts of a similar nature . That request concerned CARDINAL companies , including the applicant companies .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , published in the Official Bulletin on Competition , ORG ( ORG , de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes – “ the BOCCRF ” ) , ORG , finding evidence of practices outlawed by the ordinance of DATE and the ordinance of CARDINAL DATE , fined the first applicant company MONEY ( FRF ) , the second ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the third FRF CARDINAL .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE published in the BOCCRF , ORG upheld all those penalties . The applicant companies appealed on points of law .

In a judgment of DATE , likewise published in the BOCCRF , ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of ORG , on the ground that its calculation of turnover and its assessment of the amount of the fines had had no basis in law . It remitted the case to ORG sitting with different judges .

At the retrial in ORG , the applicant companies contested the lawfulness of the searches and seizures carried out by the inspectors , without any judicial authorisation , under the DATE ordinance . They relied on LAW .

On DATE the head of ORG DGCCRF submitted additional observations on behalf of ORG , stating , inter alia :

“ ... I will consider CARDINAL points concerning the investigation procedure ... :

( a ) The inspections carried out under the DATE ordinance should have been judicially authorised in advance , in accordance with ORG ...

( b ) Secondly , the seizures carried out by the DGCCRF officials went beyond the actual purpose of the inspections , in that documents not expressly referred to in the application for the investigation were taken from several companies ' head offices .

... section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE is worded in very explicit terms , as it states that in the course of their investigations , inspectors may require the production of , and seize , documents of any kind that are likely to facilitate the accomplishment of their tasks , irrespective of whose hands the documents are in . The distinctive feature of this procedure was that , in contrast to the provisions now in force , which were introduced by section CARDINAL of the ordinance of DATE , the inspections were not carried out under constant judicial supervision . In the absence of any provisions on the matter , it is hard to see what supervisory procedure should have been followed .

... it appears from the provisions of the DATE ordinances that the inspectors were vested with powers of search and seizure which they exercised when carrying out their general task of obtaining evidence . The aforementioned section CARDINAL must be interpreted in the light of section CARDINAL of the same ordinance , by which inspectors were granted unrestricted access to LOC ... ”

On DATE the differently constituted ORG held , inter alia :

“ ... the administrative investigation was carried out in accordance with section CARDINAL of the aforementioned ordinance . By virtue of that provision , inspectors are authorised to require the production of , and to seize , documents of any kind that are likely to facilitate the accomplishment of their task , irrespective of whose hands the documents are in . They have a general right to inspect documents , reinforced by a power of seizure . Since no search took place in the course of the administrative investigation , the firms have no grounds for arguing that there has been interference with their private life or home in breach of LAW ... ”

ORG fined the first applicant company ORG CARDINAL , the second FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the third FRF CARDINAL . The applicant companies again appealed on points of law .

In a judgment of DATE published in the BOCCRF , ORG dismissed their appeal . In particular , it dismissed their complaint under LAW , holding that “ the administrative investigation ... [ had ] not give[n ] rise to any searches or coercive measures ” .

At the time of the impugned inspections ( DATE and DATE ) , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE on the detection , prosecution and punishment of offences against legislation on trade and industry provided :

“ The officials referred to in section CARDINAL ( subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) may require the production of , and may seize , documents of any kind ... that are likely to facilitate the accomplishment of their task , irrespective of whose hands the documents are in . They shall be entitled to take samples .

Officials from ORG and Prices , the Revenue , ORG and Excise , ORG and ORG may also , notwithstanding professional confidentiality , consult any documents kept by ORG , département and municipal authorities or offices , by public and quasi - public corporations , by institutions and bodies under ORG supervision and by firms and services granted a concession by the ORG , départements and municipal authorities . ”

“ ... The officials referred to in section CARDINAL shall have unrestricted access to shops if the latter do not constitute the trader 's residence , in which case the search may only take place in accordance with the provisions of subsection CARDINAL , and to back - shops , offices , annexes , warehouses , LOC used for processing , production , sales , dispatch or storage and , in general , to any LOC , subject , in the case of residential LOC , to the provisions of the fifth subsection of this section ... ”

The relevant provisions of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE on free prices and competition , repealing Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , read as follows :

“ Inspectors may enter any LOC , land or means of transport used for occupational purposes , may require the production of books , invoices and any other business documents and make copies thereof , and may obtain information and explanations by means of a summons or at the scene .

They may request the authority to which they are answerable to appoint an expert to draw up any necessary reports with the participation of all the parties . ”

“ Inspectors may make searches of any LOC and seize documents solely in the context of investigations requested by ORG or ORG , and subject to judicial authorisation by an order of the President of the tribunal de grande instance within whose territorial jurisdiction the LOC to be searched are situated , or a judge delegated by him . Where the LOC are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of several courts and are all to be searched simultaneously , a single order may be issued by CARDINAL of the relevant presidents .

The judge shall check that each application for leave made to him is well - founded ; each request shall contain all information that may justify the search .

Searches and seizures shall be carried out under the authority and supervision of the judge who has authorised them . He shall designate CARDINAL or more senior police officers [ officiers de police judiciaire ] with responsibility for being present at the operations and keeping him informed of their progress . Where they take place outside the territorial jurisdiction of his tribunal de grande instance , he shall issue a rogatory letter , for the purposes of such supervision , to the President of the tribunal de grande instance within whose jurisdiction the search is being made .

The judge may go to the scene during the operation . He may decide at any time to suspend or halt the search .

Against an order referred to in the first subsection of this section there shall lie only an appeal on points of law as provided in LAW . Such an appeal shall not have suspensive effect .

Searches may not be commenced before TIME or after TIME They shall be made in the presence of the occupier of the LOC or his representative .

Only the inspectors , the occupier of the LOC or his representative and the senior police officer may inspect documents before they are seized .

Inventories shall be made and documents placed under seal , in accordance with LAW .

The originals of the report and of the inventory shall be forwarded to the judge who ordered the search .

Items and documents that are no longer useful for establishing the truth shall be returned to the occupier of the LOC . ”

NORP The domestic case - law at the material time may be summarised as follows .

In the field of taxation ORG rejected section CARDINAL of LAW for DATE , concerning the investigation of income - tax and turnover - tax offences , holding , inter alia :

“ While the needs of the Revenue 's work may dictate that tax officials should be authorised to make investigations in private places , such investigations can only be conducted in accordance with LAW , which makes the judiciary responsible for protecting the liberty of the individual in all its aspects , in particular the inviolability of the home . Provision must be made for judicial participation in order that the judiciary 's responsibility and supervisory power may be maintained in their entirety ... ”

I

With regard to the provisions referred to the ORG , the significance of its decision is clear from a constitutional point of view ...

... the decision of DATE must be examined ... in relation to recognition of the inviolability of the home as a constitutional principle .

... The question on which the ORG was asked to give a ruling was not whether sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the DATE ordinance were constitutional but whether the powers conferred by those provisions could be extended to tax officials in matters concerning direct taxation and GPE [ value - added tax ] .

The issue under consideration was therefore wholly extraneous to the subject matter of the DATE ordinance and there was no necessary link between the CARDINAL types of instrument .

Obviously , that does not mean that ORG indirectly , by implication , acknowledged the constitutionality of the DATE ordinance . It merely ignored the question . But the principles it set forth in the rest of the decision show that certain rules laid down in the DATE ordinance ... have become incompatible with constitutional law under LAW ( see section PERSON below ) .

II

ORG decision has had the effect of highlighting the fact that several provisions of existing statutes providing for purely administrative searches are incompatible with the constitutional principles it has laid down ...

NORP The existing provisions for purely administrative searches are incompatible with the constitutional principles set out in the decision in issue .

( CARDINAL ) Such provisions , which are exceptions to the general law governing searches , are fairly numerous .

LAW ... And LAW ...

Articles L. CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL of LAW ( Code of Tax Procedure ) ...

Among the most recent provisions , particular mention should be made of those in the CARDINAL ordinances of DATE , which serve as the foundation of the economic branch of the criminal law inherited from the ORG regime .

Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ( referred to above ) of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL allow searches to be made , with a view to detecting economic offences , ... of any premises save residential ones , by numerous categories of officials acting alone , ... and of residential premises by any such officials who have been given special authorisation to that end by ORG , and who must be accompanied by a local council officer or a senior police officer and operate during TIME only .

( CARDINAL ) It is quite obvious that all the provisions examined above are incompatible with the principles laid down in ORG decision .

In the great majority of cases there is no provision for any review by the ordinary courts ( for example , in LAW , LAW as regards searches of LOC other than exclusively residential ones , the ordinance of DATE in the same circumstances ... ) . ”

A DATE report by ORG gives the following analysis of the relevant domestic law after the events in issue :

“ The right of tax , customs and competition officials to make searches and seizures ” ( Study by PERSON , judge of ORG )

“ ... ( b ) The effect of the decision of DATE is clarified by the provisions that were declared invalid .

... The ORG 's decision has another effect , as all legal writers have observed . The provisions of the DATE ordinance ... would all have fallen foul of the ORG if it had existed when they were promulgated . It was therefore implicitly established that they were incompatible with the LAW . Although they could not be retrospectively declared invalid , it was no longer possible for them to be used as a reference in future .

That is all the truer as the government has seen in the ORG 's decision the same implication of invalidity , again noted by legal writers , with regard to the provisions creating the right to make searches in relation to indirect taxation , customs and economic offences , which have now been repealed and replaced by new ones designed to conform to the ORG 's requirements ... ”

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE in ORG ( Joined Cases CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ DATE ] ORG Reports ( ECR ) CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG ) held :

“ CARDINAL . Since the applicant has also relied on the requirements stemming from the fundamental right to the inviolability of the home , it should be observed that , although the existence of such a right must be recognised in the ORG legal order as a principle common to the laws of LAW in regard to the private dwellings of natural persons , the same is not true in regard to undertakings , because there are not inconsiderable divergences between the legal systems of GPE in regard to the nature and degree of protection afforded to business LOC against intervention by the public authorities .

No other inference is to be drawn from DATE ... Convention ... The protective scope of that article is concerned with the development of man 's personal freedom and may not therefore be extended to business LOC . Furthermore , it should be noted that there is no case - law of ORG on that subject .

None the less , in all the legal systems of the Member States , any intervention by the public authorities in the sphere of private activities of any person , whether natural or legal , must have a legal basis and be justified on the grounds laid down by law , and , consequently , those systems provide , albeit in different forms , protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention . The need for such protection must be recognised as a general principle of Community law . In that regard , it should be pointed out that the ORG has held that it has the power to determine whether measures of investigation taken by the ORG under LAW are excessive ( judgment of DATE in Joined Cases CARDINAL to CARDINAL and DATE to CARDINAL , PERSON and ORG [ DATE ] ECR CARDINAL ) . ”

The ORG reaffirmed that position in CARDINAL judgments of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( Case CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ DATE ] ECR CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL ) and ORG and ORG ( Joined Cases DATE [ CARDINAL ] ECR CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In its judgment of DATE in ORG and ORG ( Joined Cases T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL to T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , TCARDINAL/CARDINAL , T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG and T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG held :

“ CARDINAL . ... the applicants argue that in the course of its investigations the ORG infringed the principle of inviolability of the home within the meaning of LAW ORG as interpreted in the case - law of ORG v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-B ) , whose review is more extensive than that performed in the context of Community law ...

The Commission begins by arguing that the ORG does not apply to Community competition procedures . ...

As to the merits of the plea , the Commission considers that the relevance of the case - law of ORG ( ORG and ORG , cited above ) is not affected by LAW ORG as interpreted by ORG .

Findings of the Court

( ii ) The merits of the plea

For the reasons set out above ... , the plea must be understood as alleging infringement of the general principle of Community law ensuring protection against intervention by the public authorities in the sphere of private activities of any person , whether natural or legal , which are disproportionate or arbitrary ( ORG , paragraph CARDINAL ; ORG , paragraph CARDINAL ; Joined Cases CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ORG Ibérica v. Commission [ DATE ] ECR CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) . ...

– The first part of the plea , concerning the validity of the formal acts relating to the investigations

... In so far as the pleas and arguments put forward DATE by ORG and ORG are identical or similar to those put forward at that time by ORG , the ORG sees no reason to depart from the case - law of ORG .

That case - law is , moreover , based on the existence of a general principle of Community law , as referred to above , which applies to legal persons . The fact that the case - law of ORG concerning the applicability of LAW ORG to legal persons has evolved since [ the judgments cited above ] therefore has no direct impact on the merits of the solutions adopted in those cases . ”


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

Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

A private company sued the applicant on a claim of unjust enrichment not related to his salary . It submitted a document showing that the applicant had received money from the company . The applicant counterclaimed that the document had been void .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , partly allowed the company ’s claim and ordered that the applicant repay MONEY ( RUB ) to the company .

By a supplementary judgment of DATE , ORG ordered that the applicant pay the court fee of RUB CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgments and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim . It declared the voucher void , confirmed the applicant ’s title to the disputed money , ordered that the company pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL in legal costs and expenses and ordered that the applicant pay the company RUB CARDINAL .

In its grounds of appeal the company complained that the first - instance and appeal courts had erred in the establishment of the facts .

On DATE ORG reversed the award of RUB CARDINAL , rejected the company ’s claims in full , and upheld the remainder of the judgment .

On DATE the company filed an application for supervisory review of the judgments of DATE and DATE . It reiterated its argument that that the first - instance and appeal courts had erred in the establishment of the facts and asked the ORG of ORG to quash their judgments and to remit the case to the first - instance court .

On DATE the applicant filed comments on the application for supervisory review . He maintained his claims and asked the Presidium of ORG to reject the application .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgments of DATE , DATE and DATE because the courts had incorrectly established the facts . It reinstated the judgment of DATE . Counsel for the applicant was present at the hearing .

On an unspecified date the applicant repaid RUB CARDINAL to the company .

On DATE ORG gave a binding interpretation of the provisions governing legal fee agreements . It indicated , inter alia , that contingency fee agreements were not enforceable . On DATE the ORG confirmed that approach .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , the GPE region . He is a former employee of the ORG - controlled ORG “ NORP ” ( “ the ORG , ” ORG “ Південелектромаш ” ) .

The background facts for the case are described in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . The circumstances of the present case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the ORG 's labour disputes commission ( “ the Commission , ” комісія з трудових спорів ВАТ “ Південелектромаш “ ) ordered the Company to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL in salary arrears .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the Bailiffs , ” PERSON виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції ) initiated the enforcement proceedings for the above decision .

On DATE ORG Новокаховський міський суд PERSON області ) ordered the Company to pay the applicant an additional amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . This judgment became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Bailiffs .

On DATE the Bailiffs returned the execution writs in respect of the judgment of DATE to the applicant unenforced . They stated that the judgment could not be enforced for the debtor 's lack of funds . They further advised the applicant of his right to resubmit these writs at any time , but until DATE . On DATE the applicant resubmitted the writs and on DATE the Bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings .

As of DATE , the applicant was no . CARDINAL in the creditors ' waiting list in respect of the enforcement of the ORG 's decision and no . CARDINAL in respect of the enforcement of the court judgment . Both of them remain unenforced to present day .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against several respondents before the GPE XX / XXI / XXIII ORG , requesting it to establish the invalidity of a contract and to order the respondents to vacate the house in which they lived .

Subsequently , several hearings took place and the opinion of an expert was obtained . DATE and DATE the case was suspended pending a related procedure before the land registry .

After several further hearings , on DATE ORG dismissed the action . On appeal , ORG upheld the essence of the first - instance decision on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s petition for review .


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

On an unspecified date in DATE , ORG and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in GPE in order to build ORG . The authorities paid him the value of the land , assessed by a committee of experts , when the expropriation took place .

Following the applicant ’s request , on DATE ORG awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE the amount of MONEY ( TRL ) was paid to the applicant .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of ORG v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE , § § CARDINAL ) .


Mr PERSON , a NORP citizen , is a businessman residing at FAC in the LOC - West of GPE .

In connection with the bankruptcy of the applicant ’s removal firm in DATE , a rifle was found among the goods stored on its business LOC . Following a police investigation during which it was recorded that the rifle lacked a breech - block , the applicant was charged , on DATE , with illegal possession of a weapon ( olaga vapeninnehav ) contrary to LAW DATE ( vapenlagen CARDINAL:CARDINAL ; " the DATE LAW ) . LAW , sub - section CARDINAL , of the DATE Act expressly included within the definition of weapons unusable items which , if made usable , would count as weapons .

The applicant was subsequently summoned to appear before ORG ( tingsrätten ) of GPE for a hearing of his case ( huvudförhandling ) on DATE . In its judgment of the same date the court stated :

" [ The applicant ] has contested criminal liability , on the following grounds : the weapon in question was owned by PERSON , who was married to his mother . PERSON is dead . When [ the applicant ’s ] mother moved house DATE the weapon went to [ the applicant ’s ] storage room together with furniture for which there was no room in his mother ’s new home . The weapon was found in the storage room in connection with [ the applicant ’s ] bankruptcy . He was aware of the weapon being there all the time but he did not think of it as a weapon . The rifle lacks a breech - block and there was never any ammunition . [ The applicant ] does not consider himself to be the owner of the rifle since it is his mother , now DATE , who is the formal owner of it .

The court finds that [ the applicant ] can not avoid being held responsible for the possession of the weapon , but that the violation of LAW is of a minor character . "

The court sentenced him to DATE - fines ( dagsböter ) of MONEY each , i.e. MONEY in total . The DATE amount of the fines was fixed on the basis of Mr PERSON ’s financial situation . The court also upheld the earlier decision taken by the police to seize the rifle .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG for Western Sweden , alleging that :

( a ) the police investigations had not been sufficiently thorough ;

( b ) although he admitted that he was aware that the weapon was in his removal company ’s care , he questioned whether this company really had a duty to check that the weapon had a valid licence ;

( c ) new facts had come to light , namely that the actual owner of the rifle was not the applicant ’s mother , but the son of his now deceased stepfather ;

( d ) the sentence imposed by ORG was much too severe in that it had been entered on the criminal records and would have detrimental effects on his future life , in particular as far as his chances of employment were concerned ;

( e ) the DATE Act had not been correctly applied in his case because the rifle in question had no breech - block , something which could be proven by his mother and CARDINAL - brother , and hence could not be considered a weapon within the meaning of the Act .

By letter of DATE ORG notified the applicant that , according to LAW , section DATE , of LAW , his case could be dealt with without a hearing and invited him to express his views within DATE as to the necessity for a hearing . Alternatively , he could submit his final written observations within the same time - limit . He was asked to indicate in his reply any evidence on which he would rely .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG that he considered a hearing to be necessary in his case and requested the appointment of a defence lawyer under the free legal aid scheme . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE he also advised ORG that the lower court ’s judgment had caused him damage because it had on a number of occasions led prospective employers to turn down his applications for work .

According to a note dated DATE , written by an official of the court following a telephone conversation with the applicant , the latter stated that he would not insist on calling witnesses because it was no longer disputed that the breech - block was missing .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for a defence lawyer . On DATE he was also informed that , since the case could be decided without a hearing , he should submit his final written observations within DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant reiterated his argument that the rifle could not be considered a weapon within the meaning of the DATE Act and again offered his CARDINAL - brother ’s testimony on this point . Furthermore , the applicant contested ORG refusal to appoint a defence lawyer . ORG , taking the latter submission to be an application for leave to appeal , referred the matter to ORG ( högsta domstolen ) , which refused him such leave on DATE .

ORG examined the case on CARDINAL DATE and , in accordance with LAW , section DATE , of LAW , first sub - paragraph , point CARDINAL , and third sub - paragraph , dismissed the applicant ’s request for a trial hearing as this was found to be manifestly unnecessary ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This decision was made public on DATE when judgment was delivered . The court ’s judgment stated , inter alia :

" [ The applicant ] has submitted to ORG the same information as was mentioned in the judgment of ORG and added : when [ his stepfather ] and his mother separated , his stepfather left the rifle at the mother ’s place of residence at ORG . Because [ the stepfather ] has died it is his son ... who is the owner of the rifle .

It is undisputed that [ the applicant ] has been in possession of the rifle without a permit . Regardless of how it came into his possession and who owns it , he shall therefore be convicted of having violated LAW . The sentence should be [ the one determined by ] ORG .

ORG , which accepts [ the applicant ’s ] explanations as to how the rifle came into his possession , finds that he is not the owner of it . Accordingly , the question of confiscation of the rifle concerns a person who is not accused in the present case . An action for confiscation should be directed against the owner of the rifle in accordance with LAW of DATE on promulgation of LAW . No such action has been taken in this case . The request for confiscation is therefore rejected . "

On DATE the applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG . He maintained , inter alia , that vital evidence , namely that the rifle had no breech - block and accordingly could not be a weapon within the meaning of the DATE Act , had been disregarded by both ORG and ORG . He asserted that this could easily have been proved had ORG granted his request for a hearing and heard witnesses . ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused an application by Mr PERSON to have his case re - opened .

According to LAW of LAW , lower courts must not as a rule give judgment in criminal cases until the accused has been able to defend himself at an oral hearing . Exceptions to this rule do however exist , particularly at appellate level . Thus , LAW , section DATE , of LAW ( as amended as of DATE by PERSON ) provides :

" ORG may dispose of an appeal on the merits without a hearing :

if the prosecutor appeals only for the benefit of the accused ,

if an appeal brought by the accused is supported by the opposing party ,

if the appeal is plainly unfounded , or

if no cause exists to hold the accused legally liable , or to impose a sanction upon him , or to impose a sanction other than a fine or conditional sentence , or a combination of such sanctions .

If , in a case referred to [ above ] , a party has requested a hearing , this shall take place unless manifestly unnecessary .

For a ruling not relating to the merits a hearing need not take place . "

ORG has the power to review questions both of law and of fact . However , there are some limits on its jurisdiction . LAW , for instance , lays down that ORG may not normally change the lower court ’s assessment of the evidence to the disadvantage of the accused without the evidence in question being produced afresh before ORG ; LAW , LAW ( as amended by LAW and CARDINAL ) , also contains a rule prohibiting the appellate court , in cases where the appeal is lodged by the accused or by the prosecutor for the benefit of the accused , from imposing a sentence which can be considered more severe than that imposed at first instance .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was a civil servant at the time of the events giving rise to the application .

In DATE the applicant was appointed to ORG as a warden in charge of the sale of entry tickets .

On DATE he was detained for selling tickets which had been fraudulently issued and crediting money to his account . In his police statement dated CARDINAL DATE and in his statement to the public prosecutor on DATE , the applicant confessed that he had been involved in selling forged tickets together with CARDINAL other persons .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant with embezzlement under LAW .

On DATE ORG held its first hearing . Subsequently , the public prosecutor maintained that , as the applicant ’s acts might constitute a breach of LAW of LAW regulating the offence of forgery , permission to prosecute was required from the local authority , pursuant to LAW on the Procedure for the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE the first - instance court transferred the case file to ORG for investigation and ordered the suspension of the proceedings pending the decision of ORG . It further ordered the applicant ’s release from detention .

On DATE the GPE Governor decided that the applicant could be tried before ORG on account of the nature of the charges against him .

On DATE the case file was remitted to ORG .

On DATE the court found the applicant guilty of forgery under LAW and sentenced him to DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first - instance court on procedural grounds .

On DATE ORG amended the procedural errors in its former judgment and handed down the same sentence against the applicant . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG , referring to the opinion of the principal public prosecutor dated DATE , which had not been communicated to the applicant , ruled that the first - instance court had failed to apply the legal provisions relevant to the crime in question . Consequently , it quashed the judgment of ORG and stated that the applicant ’s acts , which amounted to embezzlement under NORP law , should have been examined under LAW .

The case was subsequently remitted to ORG . In his defence submissions before the latter , the applicant denied that his acts constituted a breach of LAW and requested the court to abide by its judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of embezzlement under LAW . It sentenced the applicant to DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment and to a fine of MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant was also debarred from working in the civil service .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ORG CARDINALV ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (enforcement delay);Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE .

The applicant instituted proceedings against ORG and ORG of ORG ( ORG социальной защиты населения и GPE управление администрации PERSON области ) , seeking to recover unpaid child allowance for the period DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Октябрьский районный суд г. PERSON ) granted the applicant ’s claims in so far as they concerned ORG and ordered the latter to pay MONEY ( MONEY at the material time ) to the applicant .

No appeal was lodged and this judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG Office of Arkhangelsk ( PERSON судебных приставов по PERSON району г. PERSON ) received the execution writ in respect of the judgment .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( прокуратура Архангельской области ) informed the applicant that the unpaid child allowances were paid by ORG in turns , depending on the availability of funds .

On DATE the amount due was paid to the applicant by ORG .

On DATE ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment had been enforced . As indicated in a letter of ORG of DATE , the delayed enforcement of the judgment had been caused by lack of funds .

NORP On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the LOC court of GPE ( ORG районный суд г. PERSON ) against ORG and ORG , seeking pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages for the non - enforcement of the judgment .

She claimed that ORG had failed to take the necessary actions to enforce the judgment and requested that damages be recovered from ORG .

On DATE the ORG of Arkhangelsk refused to deal with her claim for lack of territorial jurisdiction . The court found that , since the applicant in her claim insisted that damages be recovered from ORG , she should have applied to the relevant court in GPE where the office of ORG was situated .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against this decision which was received by the court on DATE . In her appeal she argued that , as long as in her claim she had indicated both ORG and ORG as defendants , she was free in her choice as to which of the CARDINAL courts , which had territorial jurisdiction over the defendants , to apply . Since ORG was situated under the territorial jurisdiction of ORG , she had chosen to apply to this court .

On DATE ORG found that the appeal had been filed out of time and no request for leave to appeal out of time had been made . It advised the applicant to submit such request by DATE , indicating the reasons for missing the appeal time - limit . Otherwise , her appeal would be returned .

On DATE the applicant submitted such request . In her request she argued that she had not missed the appeal time - limit as the decision of DATE was received by her only on DATE . The appeal was filed on DATE , i.e. within the required DATE .

The court scheduled a hearing on the applicant ’s request on DATE . The ORG submitted that the applicant had been properly notified of that hearing but failed to appear .

The applicant did not comment on that point .

Accordingly , by letter of DATE ORG returned the applicant ’s appeal on the ground that she had failed to comply with the instructions given in its decision of DATE .

NORP The outcome of the proceedings remains unclear .

According to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Гражданский процессуальный кодекс РСФСР ) , in force at the material time , a court judgment , which has become final , is binding and must be executed .

Section CARDINAL of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings of DATE ( ORG об исполнительном производстве ) provides that a bailiff ’s order on the institution of enforcement proceedings shall fix a time - limit for the defendant ’s voluntary compliance with the writ of execution . The time - limit can not exceed DATE . The bailiff shall also warn the defendant that coercive action will follow , should the defendant fail to comply within the time - limit .