Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13 and P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

ORG The applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a NORP citizen born in DATE . He lives at ORG , which is situated in GPE and GPE , in GPE .

ORG On DATE , ORG ( länsstyrelsen ) of GPE granted him a taxi traffic licence , and , on DATE , a licence to carry passengers and their goods on specified interurban routes ( linjetrafik ) . The licences were expressed to be valid until further notice .

ORG The applicant commenced his combined taxi and interurban traffic business on CARDINAL DATE . CARDINAL vehicles ( a Peugeot CARDINAL - mainly for the taxi traffic ; and a QUANTITY ORG - mainly for the interurban traffic ) were used in the business , which occupied the applicant , his father and a third driver on a part - time basis . By way of interurban traffic , the applicant offered a service of CARDINAL journeys DATE at scheduled times . This service was available on request and had to be ordered DATE in advance .

ORG On DATE , ORG ( länstrafiken i ORG ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) filed an application with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for a licence to provide interurban transport on routes including those covered by Mr. PERSON second licence . ORG at the same time requested that this licence be revoked , as well as a licence held since DATE by a certain Mr. PERSON .

In support of its application , the ORG submitted that CARDINAL traffic services in CARDINAL different regions were to be united into CARDINAL regular service with a single time - table , to be provided by the bus service business owned by Mr. PERSON and others .

The applicant opposed the revocation of his licence .

ORG On DATE , ORG granted ORG a licence , valid as from DATE , to provide interurban transport of passengers and goods on the routes indicated in its request . In another decision on DATE , the ORG revoked the applicant ’s and Mr. PERSON ’s licences for interurban traffic , inter alia on the following grounds :

" The plans for the future transport service offered by ORG include a regular bus service which is to be created between the places in question . Such a plan will , in the opinion of ORG , enable a better network of routes to be created for the area and transport to be co - ordinated in CARDINAL route . Bearing this in mind , it is the opinion of ORG that the transport service in the area will be improved in such a way that the licence applied for by ORG can not be refused . Consequently , the former licences , issued to ( the applicant ) and Mr. PERSON , shall be revoked . "

By virtue of a subsequent order , Mr. PERSON licence was to cease to be valid as from the date on which the revocation of DATE became final . Shortly thereafter , ORG contracted out to the company owned by Mr. PERSON and others the running of a bus service on the routes covered by its new licence .

ORG The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( transportrådet ) , in which he alleged , inter alia , the following . ORG application for a licence for the routes covered by his licence had been motivated not by any public interest in improving the transport service , but by an arrangement between the ORG and Mr. PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . Only very serious reasons , such as misconduct of the licence - holder , could justify revocation . When revoking his licence , ORG had failed to take due account of his interests . Finally , the transport service on the routes concerned was not likely to be improved simply by being carried out by Mr. PERSON and others instead of by himself .

ORG rejected the appeal on CARDINAL DATE .

ORG Mr. PERSON thereupon lodged a further appeal with ORG ) , in which he referred to his arguments submitted to ORG .

The Government dismissed the appeal on DATE . In response to a further request from the applicant , the Government declined , on CARDINAL DATE , to review their previous decision .

ORG The relevant law is to be found in the LAW and the Ordinance of DATE on ORG ( yrkestrafiklagen CARDINAL - " the CARDINAL Act " , and yrkestrafikförordningen CARDINAL:CARDINAL - " the DATE Ordinance " ) .

Section CARDINAL in LAW of the CARDINAL Act defines commercial transport as a transport service of goods or passengers by car , truck or bus offered to the public for a fee . Such service may only be performed by persons possessing a transport licence ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

ORG Under LAW ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) , there are CARDINAL kinds of passenger transport licences , which can briefly be described as follows :

- transport on request , where the vehicle , with a driver , is put at the customer ’s disposal and the price is determined according to the customer ’s use of it ( beställningstrafik ) ;

- tourist transport , which comprises commissioned tours for sightseeing , etc . ( turisttrafik ) ; and

- regular transport on defined routes within or between specified urban areas - interurban traffic ( linjetrafik ) - , where the vehicle is not put at the customer ’s disposal .

Only persons ( physical or legal ) deemed suitable to conduct the service may obtain a licence . In examining applications , such factors as professional skill and personal and economic circumstances are considered , with a view to ensuring that the transport is effected under safe conditions by economically stable undertakings ( LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ) . A further condition is that the intended service is deemed necessary and appropriate ( LAW , LAW ) . The reason for this is the overall objective of establishing an adequate transport network and preventing any harmful surplus service . This objective extends to ensuring that transport operators who work on DATE and at TIME that are not profitable are not exposed to uncontrolled competition from others who only provide a service when profitable .

The licensing authority makes licences to carry passengers on interurban routes subject to specific conditions , concerning such matters as routes and time - tables ( LAW , section CARDINAL , and LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of the DATE Ordinance ) . ORG sets the rates to be charged ( ibid . , LAW , sections CARDINAL ) .

Norrbotten is CARDINAL of the vast and sparsely populated counties in GPE where an adequate transport service is not feasible unless publicly - funded transport is provided . It is estimated that an average of MONEY of passenger transport costs in GPE are borne out of public funds and that this percentage is even higher in the LOC parts of the country .

Licences to carry passengers on interurban routes are normally issued and revoked by ORG .

ORG According to LAW of DATE on " Principals " for various forms of public transport of passengers ( DATE : CARDINAL om huvudmannaskap för viss kollektiv persontrafik - " LAW " ) , each county shall have a " Principal " ( " huvudman " ) responsible for the local and regional public traffic by road ( section CARDINAL ) and , in particular , for ensuring the availability of proper transport facilities at a cost which does not impose an undue burden on taxpayers .

The Principal , which is constituted by ORG ( landstinget ) and the local municipalities ( kommunerna ) together , has overall responsibility for public transport within the county . In some counties the GPE ’s tasks are carried out by a public entity ( kommunalförbund ) . However , in most counties , including that of GPE , they are performed by a company , known as ORG , which is wholly owned by ORG and the municipalities .

The Principal may either hold the licences itself or operate a system under which they are held by private transporters . In the former event , the ORG may provide the service under its own management or arrange for private persons to run the traffic under contract . Even where the licence - holder is a private transporter , he is dependent on funding from the GPE in order to cover deficits .

ORG A licence must be revoked if it has been misused in such a way that the holder can no longer be deemed suitable to provide the service , though in less serious cases a warning may be issued ; it must also be revoked if the service is not maintained ( LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ) .

A licence must also be revoked where , inter alia , a municipality or a Principal applies for a licence and establishes that the transport facilities in the area will probably be improved if it takes over the licence itself ( LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ) . In addition , a licence may be revoked , following an application by a prospective transporter , when there are good grounds to suppose that this will be conducive to the most rational organisation of transport .

ORG An appeal against any such decision by ORG to revoke a licence lies to ORG . In its capacity as authority of final instance , ORG ) may review decisions by ORG .

Generally speaking , the NORP administration is not subject to supervision by the ordinary courts . Those courts entertain proceedings against the ORG only in contractual matters , on questions of extra - contractual liability and , under some statutes , in respect of administrative decisions .

Judicial review of the administration ’s acts is therefore primarily a matter for administrative courts . These courts comprise CARDINAL levels : the county administrative courts ( länsrätterna ) ; the administrative courts of appeal ( kammarrätterna ) ; and ORG ( regeringsrätten ) . They are composed of independent judges and enjoy , as a rule , wide powers which enable them not only to set aside administrative acts but also to vary or substitute them .

This principle is subject to an important exception , in that no appeal may be made against decisions of the Government . There is , however , a limited possibility to file a petition with ORG for re - opening of the proceedings ( resningsansökan ) in respect of decisions of the Government as well as other authorities . Further particulars regarding this remedy appear in the GPE and PERSON judgment of DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

ORG The civil liability of the ORG is dealt with in LAW DATE ( skadeståndslagen CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

According to section CARDINAL , acts of public authorities may give rise to an entitlement to compensation in the event of fault or negligence .

However , under section CARDINAL , an action for damages will not lie in respect of decisions taken by ORG , the ORG , ORG , ORG or ORG .

ORG Finally , when a new licence has been granted , the former licence - holder may call on the new licence - holder to " redeem " the vehicles and other equipment used in his enterprise . Any such request must be lodged not DATE after the revocation became effective . Redemption cases are dealt with by the Bus and ORG in accordance with the provisions of a DATE Ordinance ( kungörelsen DATE : CARDINAL om buss - och taxivärderingsnämnden ) . ORG determines the scope of the redemption and the amount to be paid . The assets are to be given a value corresponding to what could be obtained on a sale under normal conditions . If the assessment would produce a manifestly unfair result , the amount may , however , be adjusted .

ORG must give the parties the opportunity to state their case in writing or orally . ORG may also have an enquiry carried out by independent experts . The expenses of the proceedings are to be borne , as a rule , by the new holder of the licence .

ORG is composed of a chairman and CARDINAL other members . The chairman must be an experienced judge .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved

Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE . They are a married couple .

On DATE ORG ( Prezydium Powiatowej PERSON ) informed ORG ( PERSON ) that pursuant to the decision of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) of CARDINAL DATE a cemetery located in PERSON was to be closed . The closure was to be carried out on the basis of the DATE LAW .

On DATE the Sławno ORG issued a preliminary decision in which the applicants were informed of the conditions subject to which they could build a house on plot no . CARDINAL located in GPE , PERSON settlement .

On DATE the Head of GPE ( PERSON ) issued a decision in which he named PERSON as the buyer of plot no . DATE , owned by ORG ( ORG GPE ) .

On DATE the applicants bought from the ORG a plot of land with a surface area of QUANTITY . The plot , no . CARDINAL , was classified as farming land . The applicants intended to build a house and a workshop on it .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG PERSON ) issued a decision adding the applicants’ property to the register of historic monuments ( rejestr zabytków ) on the grounds that a NORP cemetery had been established on it at DATE . It was one of the few remnants of the former NORP culture in the region . The ORG found that the layout of the cemetery was discernible and that certain parts of the cemetery were intact ( the foundations of a house of prayer , a stone wall and some gravestones ) . The applicants were advised as to the scope of their obligations deriving from ORG ( ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach ) . They were prohibited from developing their property unless they obtained a permit from ORG of ORG . The applicants did not appeal against the decision .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants requested the Governor of GPE to offer them an alternative plot of land on which they could construct a house . On DATE the ORG of ORG requested the Mayor of PERSON to grant the applicants’ request . On DATE the Mayor of Darłowo informed the applicants that the exchange of plots requested by them would be possible only in the event of the Mayor receiving a subsidy from the Governor of GPE .

On DATE Darłowo Municipality adopted a local development plan . The plan provided that the applicants could build a house on their property ( zabudowa zagrodowa ) .

On DATE the Mayor of Darłowo ( PERSON ) requested ORG to expropriate the applicants’ plot . On DATE the Koszalin ORG transmitted that request to ORG ( FAC ) as the competent authority in the matter .

On DATE the Governor of GPE requested ORG of Historic Monuments to apply to the Head of ORG ( ORG ) to institute expropriation proceedings pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Land Administration and Expropriation Act . The Governor considered that expropriation and payment of compensation would enable the applicants to buy another plot for the construction of their house .

On DATE ORG requested the Head of ORG to institute expropriation proceedings in respect of the applicants’ property . On DATE the Head of ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings , finding that no entity was interested in purchasing the cemetery . The Head of ORG further found that the applicants , who had been aware in DATE that they were purchasing a NORP cemetery , were obliged to protect the site until they could find an entity interested in its purchase . The applicants appealed and requested that the issue be resolved . They stated that they were not interested in the maintenance and protection of the site .

On DATE the Governor of GPE quashed the decision and remitted the case . He held that the lower authority had to examine a number of issues , in particular whether the property could be expropriated following negotiations with the applicants . No information was provided to the ORG about the follow - up to that decision .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants requested the Head of ORG to provide GPE with an alternative plot of land which could then be offered to the applicants . On DATE ORG replied that it did not have any such plots . On DATE the Head of ORG informed the applicants that it did not have any plot which could be the subject of an exchange . He further advised them to lodge a request with the Mayor of Darłowo .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants wrote to the Minister of Culture and ORG about the problem with their property . Their letter was dealt with by ORG .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicants that ORG ( CARDINAL powiatowe ) was the competent authority to deal with the matter . Furthermore , ORG of ORG could request ORG to commence expropriation proceedings under sections CARDINAL and GPE ) of ORG . They were informed that section CARDINAL of that Act provided that a monument of particular historic , scientific or artistic value could be acquired by the ORG if the public interest so required . ORG informed the applicants that the former NORP cemetery in PERSON belonged to that category of monuments , being one of the few remnants of NORP culture in LOC . The applicants were advised to contact ORG as the representative of ORG , whose duty it was to resolve their problem .

On DATE GPE informed the applicants that there was no legal basis for the municipality to acquire their plot or to offer them another plot in exchange . They were further informed that they could request the Mayor of GPE NORP powiatu ) to expropriate their land pursuant to ORG . A request could also have been submitted by ORG .

On DATE the NORP Regional Inspector of ORG requested the Mayor of PERSON to initiate expropriation proceedings . ORG stated that in DATE the applicants had bought the property as a construction plot . Subsequently , following the DATE listing decision , the applicants had been prevented from developing their land in any manner . ORG expressed the opinion that the expropriation of the plot and its ensuing transfer to the NORP community would be consistent with the provisions of LAW between the ORG and ORG ( ustawa o stosunku GPE do gmin wyznaniowych żydowskich ) and the policy concerning the NORP monuments agreed between GPE and GPE .

On DATE the applicants informed the Mayor of Darłowo that they would be prepared to exchange their plot for a plot situated in GPE or GPE .

On DATE GPE requested ORG to provide it with a plot of land which would in turn enable the municipality to arrange for an exchange of plots with the applicants .

On DATE the Sławno ORG informed the Mayor of PERSON that ORG did not have plots situated in GPE suitable for such an exchange . However , there was one plot in GPE that could be exchanged . By a letter of DATE the Mayor of PERSON informed ORG that PERSON had refused to exchange his plot for the plot situated in GPE . He further requested ORG to initiate expropriation proceedings with a view to resolving the issue of the applicants’ plot .

On DATE the Mayor of PERSON again requested ORG to commence expropriation proceedings with a view to resolving the applicants’ case . It reminded ORG that in accordance with section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW the protection of properties classified as part of the cultural heritage was in the public interest . The Mayor also noted that the DATE decision unambiguously excluded any development of the applicants’ plot .

On DATE the Sławno ORG informed the applicants of the possibility of exchanging their plot of land for a plot situated in PERSON , the village where they lived . The proposed plot was designated in the local development plan for housing and services . They were further informed that in the event of a refusal on their part the only solution would be the institution of expropriation proceedings at the request of ORG of ORG . However , that procedure could be set in motion only if the ORG had secured a subsidy from the Governor for the purpose . Accordingly , the applicants were informed that it was not possible to specify when their case might be finally resolved .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants refused the exchange , stating that the proposed plot did not satisfy their expectations . They expressed their preference for expropriation .

On DATE the Mayor of PERSON informed ORG that the negotiations concerning the exchange of plots had failed . In his view , the only solution to the problem consisted in expropriation of the applicants’ property in accordance with LAW , and having regard to its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Under LAW the expropriation could be requested by the regional inspector or the district Mayor . However , the district Mayor did not have the necessary funds to pay compensation in the event of expropriation . Consequently , he informed ORG that he could institute the expropriation proceedings only once the Inspector had secured an amount corresponding to the appropriate level of compensation .

On an unspecified date ORG in GPE ( PERSON w RP ) requested ORG ( PERSON . PERSON wyznaniowych żydowskich ) to transfer ownership of the property owned by the applicants to it on the grounds that the land had formerly been used as a NORP cemetery . On DATE the Commission discontinued the proceedings concerning that application as the property in question had been owned by private individuals ( the applicants ) .

NORP In DATE the Governor of LOC ( Wojewoda Zachodniopomorski ) informed the Mayor of PERSON that it would not be possible to grant a subsidy with a view to purchasing the applicants’ property . On DATE the Mayor of PERSON apprised the applicants of that decision . He informed them that there was no possibility as matters stood of resolving the issue of their property .

DATE GPE signed this PERSON on DATE but has not yet ratified it . The relevant parts of the ORG provide :

“ Each ORG undertakes :

NORP to take statutory measures to protect the architectural heritage ;

NORP within the framework of such measures and by means specific to each State or region , to make provision for the protection of monuments , groups of buildings and sites . ”

“ Each ORG undertakes :

NORP to prevent the disfigurement , dilapidation or demolition of protected properties . To this end , each ORG undertakes to introduce , if it has not already done so , legislation which :

( d ) allows compulsory purchase of a protected property . ”

At the material time issues relating to protection of the country ’s heritage were regulated by ORG of DATE ( LOC o ochronie dóbr kultury – “ the Protection of the Cultural Heritage Act ” ) . A decision on listing a real property in the register of historic monuments was taken , in principle , by ORG of ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Following such a decision no work could be carried out on the historic monument unless a permit was granted by the regional inspector ( section CARDINAL ) . LAW imposed various obligations on the owners of listed monuments ; in particular a duty to protect them against any damage .

Section CARDINAL provides , in so far as relevant :

“ ... ownership of a monument of particular historic , scientific or artistic value may be acquired by the ORG with a view to making it accessible to the general public where the public interest so requires . ”

Section CARDINAL provided that the acquisition of ownership took place at the request of the district Mayor or the regional inspector , in accordance with LAW .

On DATE ORG was repealed and ORG of DATE ( LOC o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami ) came into force . In contrast to the former LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that immovable monuments may be expropriated at the request of a regional inspector only where there is a risk of irreversible damage to the monument .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the rules governing the administration of land held by ORG and the municipalities were laid down in ORG DATE ( “ LAW DATE ” ) .

On DATE LAW DATE was repealed and LAW of DATE ( LOC o gospodarce nieruchomościami – “ LAW CARDINAL ” ) came into force .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , which was introduced by ORG , stipulates that the protection of real properties classified as monuments within the meaning of ORG is a public - interest aim .

Under section CARDINAL of that Act , expropriation consists in taking away , by virtue of an administrative decision , ownership or other rights in rem . Expropriation can be carried out where public - interest aims can not be achieved without restriction of those rights and where it is impossible to acquire those rights by way of a civil - law contract . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) stipulates that expropriation can only be carried out for the benefit of ORG or the local municipality .

Section CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that the institution of expropriation proceedings is to be preceded by negotiations on acquisition of the property under a civil - law contract between the ORG , represented by the district Mayor , and the owner . In the framework of those negotiations the ORG may propose an alternative property to the owner .

ORG ) of the LAW stipulates that expropriation proceedings for the benefit of ORG are to be instituted of the latter ’s own motion . The expropriation proceedings for the benefit of the local municipality are instituted at the request of the latter . Only where the request is submitted by the local municipality does refusal take the form of an administrative decision ( decyzja ; section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .


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 PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

The applicant worked for a non - governmental organisation in DATE and DATE . In DATE he was dismissed from his job because he had failed to perform his duties properly and had not observed work discipline . He was allegedly not paid compensation for his unused DATE leave , nor his salary for DATE .

The applicant initiated court proceedings asking for his reinstatement , the issuing of his workbook ( carnet de muncă ) and payment of his salary for the entire period during which he had not obtained his workbook , a recognition of the fact that his contract with the employer had been concluded for an indefinite period and that his DATE contract had been unlawfully concluded , the payment of his salary for the entire period of his involuntary absence from work and the payment of compensation for unused DATE leave .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims , finding that he had been correctly dismissed due to his failure to perform his duties properly , as confirmed by the relevant materials and witness statements . Witnesses testified in court about his use of the internet for personal amusement during TIME and his personal conflicts with the administration as a result of matters such as his improper use of the internet , his manner of dressing and his attitude towards colleagues . His dismissal was moreover based expressly on a provision in his contract to that effect . The court also found it established that the applicant had not submitted his workbook to the employer when he started work and therefore could not request it back upon his dismissal . Finally , the court found that the entire sum due to him on dismissal had been paid .

The applicant appealed . He argued , inter alia , that the lower court had violated procedural rules when it refused to request documents which were in the possession of the other party , the relevance of which he had explained in his request . In addition , his contract should have been considered as concluded for an indefinite time . The court also refused to award him his salary for DATE even though he had not received it . His claim for compensation for unused DATE leave had also been unlawfully rejected . He challenged both the power of the executive director of his employer to dismiss him and the basis for his dismissal , as the legal requirement to give CARDINAL disciplinary warnings before dismissal had not been complied with and his conduct could not have contravened internal regulations since there were none . He finally contested the finding of the court regarding his failure to submit his workbook to the employer , relying on the fact that one of his former colleagues testified in court that she had not been asked to submit a workbook either and , accordingly , had not submitted one , and that employers were obliged by law to keep workbooks for staff . He again asked the court to request a list of documents from his former employer and explained what matters could be proved by examining those documents .

On DATE ORG rejected his appeal . The court found that the applicant had been lawfully dismissed since he had systematically failed to perform his duties . In addition , his contract had expired on DATE .

In his appeal in cassation the applicant essentially repeated the arguments he had made on appeal , annexing a letter from ORG which had found , on DATE , that his former employer had failed to observe labour laws by not keeping workbooks for all its employees , including that of the applicant , by failing to adopt orders for hiring personnel or to adopt internal rules of conduct and a plan for DATE leave . ORG found that the applicant had not been paid compensation for unused DATE leave , in the amount of CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MDL ) . He also relied on previous judgments of ORG in which , in his opinion , the court had decided in favour of persons in similar situations .

On DATE ORG rejected his appeal in cassation , finding that he had been dismissed in accordance with the law and as a result of his systematic failure to observe the work regulations , having been sanctioned on CARDINAL separate occasions before his dismissal . The applicant did not provide evidence of the alleged unlawfulness of those sanctions . Moreover , it was clear from the case file that he had been paid in full and that he had not submitted his workbook to the employer .

On DATE the present application was communicated to the respondent Government .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a request for the re - opening of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG accepted that request and ordered a full re - hearing of the case .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court judgment of DATE and adopted a new CARDINAL , rejecting the applicant ’s claims after having found that he had started working for his employer on DATE , when he concluded a contract for DATE , and that he had been dismissed for repeatedly violating work discipline and bringing the work of the entire office to a standstill for DATE due to his abusive use of the internet . However , the court partly accepted his claim for compensation for unused leave and awarded him MDL CARDINAL in this connection . The court also ordered the employer to issue the applicant with a new - type workbook . It rejected the applicant ’s claim for payment of his salary for the period during which the employer had not issued him the workbook , finding that no evidence had been submitted of his inability to find other employment in the absence of the new - type workbook , given in particular that he was still in the possession of his old workbook , which could be used in seeking new employment .

On DATE a panel of ORG found the appeal in cassation lodged by the parties inadmissible . The parties were not summoned to the hearing .

LAW reads as follows :

“ LAW . Procedure for examining the admissibility of an appeal in cassation

... ( CARDINAL ) Admissibility of an appeal in cassation shall be decided without summoning the parties ”


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 N. Price , a solicitor in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits , namely ORG ( “ LOC ) and Widow ’s Pension ( “ WP ” ) , because he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

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


Violation de l'art. 6-1;Non-violation de l'art. 13;Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire;Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention;Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée

András Baka;Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

CARDINAL The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE , the applicants , acting both in their own names and as representatives of their son ORG , then a minor , sued the insurance company NORP and Mr GPE in GPE ORG , seeking to obtain compensation for damage sustained by their son in a road traffic accident .

Preparation of the case for hearing began on DATE . CARDINAL hearings were initially scheduled for DATE but were adjourned : CARDINAL of the court 's own motion and the other for examination of evidence .

At a hearing of CARDINAL DATE , upon the applicants ' request , the judge in charge of preparations for trial ordered the transmission of the case file to ORG ( GPE ) , which assumed jurisdiction ratione loci .

The case was set down for a first hearing before that court as late as DATE . CARDINAL hearings scheduled to take place DATE and DATE were adjourned : CARDINAL for examination of evidence , CARDINAL of the court 's own motion , CARDINAL because ORG , who had in the meantime reached his majority , had joined the proceedings in his own name before ORG , and CARDINAL in order to allow the parties to make their submissions . The hearing of submissions was then scheduled for CARDINAL DATE . However , finding that the defendant had not been informed of a change in the judge in charge of preparations for trial , the new judge adjourned the case until DATE . The hearing of submissions finally took place on DATE and judgment was reserved .

In a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited in the court 's registry on DATE , ORG allowed the claims of the applicants and their son .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application with ORG under PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , known as the “ Pinto Act ” , complaining of the excessive length of the above - described proceedings . The applicants requested the court to conclude that there had been a violation of LAW and to order ORG to pay compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage that they claimed to have sustained . Each applicant sought , inter alia , MONEY ( ORG ) for pecuniary damage and ORG MONEY for non - pecuniary damage .

In a decision of DATE , the text of which was deposited in the court 's registry on DATE , ORG found that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable . Dismissing their claim in respect of pecuniary damage on the ground that the applicants had not adduced any evidence in that connection , it awarded each applicant the sum of ORG MONEY , determined on an equitable basis , in respect of non - pecuniary damage and LAW for costs and expenses . This decision was served on the authorities on DATE and became final on DATE .

The applicants did not appeal to ORG , taking the view that such a remedy was available only in respect of points of law . On DATE they brought their case before the ORG .

In the meantime , the applicants had addressed a letter on DATE to ORG , seeking payment of the sum awarded by ORG .

On DATE the applicants served formal notice on ORG to pay the sum in question , then applied for a garnishee order ( pignoramento presso terzi ) .

The sum awarded by ORG was paid on DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice are to be found in the PERSON v. GPE judgment ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALV ) .


NAKOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

The applicant , PERSON , is a national of the Former GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG ( GPE јавен обвинител од ORG ) filed a request with ORG ( PERSON суд во ORG ) to open an investigation procedure against the applicant on the basis of serious and well - reasoned suspicions that the applicant had abused his official duty as a Deputy General PERSON of “ ORG ” company and had thus committed the criminal offence proscribed in LAW in conjunction with LAW ( ORG закон PERSON ) . In addition , the prosecutor proposed to the court to issue an order for the detention of the applicant on remand because there were reasonable suspicions that he might impede the investigation by influencing witnesses and destroying material evidence .

On DATE ORG rendered a decision for opening investigation proceedings against the applicant and ordered his detention on remand for DATE , effective on the same date .

On DATE that court quashed the detention order , finding that the grounds for maintaining the applicant in detention had ceased to exist .

On DATE the Štip Basic Court ( ORG суд во ORG ) rendered a decision closing the investigation proceedings against the applicant because , as indicated in the statement of ORG ( NORP јавно обвинтелство во ORG ) supplied to the court on DATE , the statutory time - limit for prosecution had expired .

The applicant submits that subsequently , on DATE , he filed a civil action against the ORG before ORG ( LOC суд во ORG ) for the compensation of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages suffered during investigation and for deprivation of liberty . He further maintains that he instituted the court proceedings following a request filed with ORG ( ORG за правда ) to which there was no reply within the statutory time - limit . The total amount of the applicant ’s claim for just compensation was MONEY .

On DATE the Štip Basic Court rendered a judgment by which it partially accepted the applicant ’s claim and awarded him compensation of a total amount of MONEY . The amount of MONEY was awarded as compensation for the pecuniary damages related to defence expenses incurred in the investigation proceedings , whereas the remaining portion of MONEY was awarded in compensation for the mental sufferings and pain caused by the impairment of the applicant ’s honour , reputation , and fundamental rights and freedoms experienced during the investigation proceedings , which lasted for DATE .

The court also imposed an obligation on the defendant ORG to pay to the applicant a statutory default interest computed as of DATE , the date when the applicant lodged his complaint with the court . In addition , it awarded the applicant costs and expenditures incurred in these proceedings amounting to MONEY .

On DATE the Štip Appellate Court ( Апелационен суд Штип ) partially accepted the appeal lodged by the defendant ORG , finding that the lower court erred in the application of the law . It reversed the judgment of the first - instance court and substantially reduced the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant , by holding that the applicant was to receive compensation only for non - pecuniary damage suffered on account of his deprivation of liberty during the DATE detention on remand , of an amount of MONEY , coupled with statutory default interest which was to be computed from the date of delivery of the first - instance judgment . It also reduced the procedural costs awarded to the applicant to QUANTITY .

On DATE ORG ( Врховен суд на ORG ) refused to entertain the applicant ’s appeal on points of law and refrained from examining the merits of the applicant ’s case on the basis of LAW ( ORG за парничната постапка ) , which provides that such an extraordinary judicial remedy may be used only in disputes whose value , as set out in the impugned part of the final judicial decision , exceeds a certain value prescribed by law . The court found that the value of the applicant ’s dispute as set out in the impugned ORG decision was lower than that set by law , which according to the new procedural rule amounted to MONEY . The applicant alleges that he was served with that decision on DATE .

LAW ) , published in ORG , provides , inter alia , that a person unlawfully detained , apprehended or convicted has a right to legal redress and other rights determined by law .

The provision contained in LAW , item CARDINAL , of LAW ( ORG за кривичнатa постапка ) , which , in accordance with the PERSON on the Implementation of the LAW of GPE ( ORG за спроведување на GPE на Република Македонија ) , published in ORG , has continued to be applied after the independence of the FYR of GPE , presribes that the person entitled to compensation for damages shall be the person who was detained on remand and gainst whom no criminal proceedings were instituted or were terminated by a final court decision , or the person who was acquited by a final judgment or the criminal charges against whom were rejected .

The relevant parts of LAW ( ORG за процесната постапка ) which , in accordance with the PERSON on the Implementation of the LAW has continued to be applied after the independence of the FYR of GPE , and which has governed the procedural rules concerning appeals on points of law ( hereinafter referred as revision ) prior to the enactment of the new law by which the financial threshold for its admissibility was increased , read as follows :

“ The parties may lodge a request for revision against a final judgment rendered at second instance within DATE from DATE when the party was served with a certified copy of the judgment .

The revision shall be inadmissible in disputes where the claim pertains to money , the delivery of objects or the undertaking of certain activities , provided that the value of the dispute as set out in the impugned part of the final judgment does not exceed QUANTITY . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( ORG за парничната постапка ) , published in the Official Gazette no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL , applicable as of DATE , provides inter alia that revision shall be inadmissible in disputes where the claim pertains to money , the delivery of objects or the undertaking of certain activities , provided that the value of the dispute as set out in the impugned part of the final judgment does not exceed QUANTITY .

The transitional and final provisions contained in LAW of LAW inter alia state that if the first - instance judgment was brought after the date of entry into force of LAW , the proceedings shall continue to be conducted according to its provisions .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 3;No violation of P4-4

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant comes from the NORP province of GPE and is a member of the NORP ethnic group . His family were land - owning farmers . His father was a member of ORG and was a party representative in ORG . After the fall of the communist regime of PERSON , this political involvement by a NORP was regarded as high treason . In particular , the applicant ’s family faced hostility from a former warlord who had gone on to become a prominent local figure , ORG . The latter , a NORP and a former member of PERSON ( an NORP political party ) , appropriated the family ’s possessions in DATE . At DATE a grenade was thrown into the applicant ’s family home , and he sustained injuries to the head and thigh . The applicant claimed to have scars on his body as a result of that event . His father allegedly received a knee injury . The case file included a medical certificate drawn up on DATE by a doctor at ORG at ORG , GPE , who concluded :

“ ... Mr PERSON informs me that he is from the GPE region . Following a conflict between his father and a local chief , a grenade was thrown at the family home . Mr PERSON states that he sustained injuries to the head and left thigh .

In the course of the examination , several scars on the left parietal area of the scalp and a scar covering CARDINAL of the outer left thigh were found .

The findings of the clinical examination are compatible with the patient ’s statements . ”

The applicant and his family left GPE for GPE , staying first in ORG , then in NORP .

The applicant claimed that he arrived in GPE in DATE . On DATE he applied for asylum . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( “ the OFPRA ” ) refused his application on the following grounds :

“ The applicant , who was questioned at the ORG , referred to land disputes between his father and a local commander and stated that he had been obliged to leave his country of origin in DATE or DATE . He initially lived in a camp on the NORP - NORP border for DATE before settling with his family in GPE .

Even supposing they were substantiated , and given the grounds having occasioned them , the time that has elapsed and the political changes that have since occurred in GPE , the circumstances described can not , however , justify the applicant ’s refusal to return and to claim protection from the current authorities in his country of origin . ”

NORP That decision was upheld on CARDINAL May CARDINAL by ORG . On DATE the applicant was directed to leave NORP territory .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s family was repatriated from GPE to their village of origin . They again encountered hostility from ORG who , supported by the new governor of GPE ( also a member of a radical NORP party and , like PERSON , an ethnic NORP ) , refused to return their land . According to the applicant , his family were again obliged to seek refuge in the NORP town of NORP . The applicant alleged that he had heard nothing from his relatives since that time .

In the light of those events , the applicant alleged that he had intended to lodge a fresh application for asylum in GPE , but that he had been waiting to obtain further news from his family .

On DATE the applicant was arrested at FAC in GPE , a place where NORP nationals newly arrived in GPE frequently gathered . He was released on that occasion .

On DATE he was again arrested at the same location with other NORP nationals . He alleged that the NORP police had carried out targeted arrests based on the nationality of those concerned , with a view to organising a “ grouped flight ” to deport them .

On DATE he was made the subject of a prefectoral removal order , of a decision stipulating the country of destination and of an administrative detention order .

The applicant applied to ORG to have set aside the prefectoral order of DATE and the separate decision naming GPE as the country of destination . By a judgment of DATE , the judge appointed by the President of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . The applicant appealed to ORG .

On DATE , during a hearing with the liberties and detention judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance , the applicant stated : “ I do not wish to return to my country of origin because I am afraid for my life . I have new information to include in my request for political asylum . I would like to see a doctor . ”

In an order issued on DATE , the liberties and detention judge ordered that the administrative detention be extended by DATE , until TIME on DATE . The judge also noted :

“ the detainee raised complaints of a medical nature ... and requested political asylum ; ...

We order that the detainee be examined by a doctor from the forensic medicine unit at ORG in order to determine whether his state of health is compatible with the detention and expulsion order . ”

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other NORP nationals ( PERSON , PERSON and NORP ) lodged an application with the ORG , together with a request for application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the GPE Police Commissioner ’s Office informed the applicant that he had been refused leave to remain , in a document dated DATE and worded as follows :

“ You were arrested on DATE and found to be in contravention of the legislation on aliens ; you have now requested that your application for asylum be re - examined .

This request , submitted out of time and in support of your [ continued ] detention , is clearly intended to circumvent an order for removal from NORP territory .

In consequence , and in accordance with Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the LAW on the conditions of entry and residence of aliens and the right of asylum , I refuse to grant you leave to remain . ...

The re - examination of your request for refugee status will therefore be given priority treatment by ORG under Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , PERSON , L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the above - mentioned Code .

Finally , an administrative measure of expulsion by prefectoral order may be taken in application of Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the above - mentioned Code ; however , this may not be enforced prior to the ORG ’s decision ( Article PERSON of the above - mentioned Code ) . ”

On DATE the acting President of the Second Section decided to indicate to ORG , under LAW , that it was desirable to refrain from deporting the applicant to GPE . He also invited the Government to keep the ORG informed of the applicant ’s situation with regard to the proceedings on his asylum application and the medical examination ordered by the liberties and detention judge . In reply , the Government indicated that the applicant had been released from ORG on DATE and was free to circulate on NORP territory .

On DATE a grouped flight left GPE for GPE .

On DATE the ORG decided to extend the interim measure indicated under Rule CARDINAL until further notice .

On DATE the prefecture summoned the applicant to an interview , scheduled for DATE , to examine his administrative situation with a view to enforcement of the removal measure .

On DATE the OFPRA registered a second asylum application from the applicant . On DATE the Director General of the OFPRA refused it on the following grounds :

“ In support of his application ,

Mr PERSON

Refers to the general situation in GPE .

In itself , however , this evidence is not sufficient to substantiate the fears of persecution or the existence of serious threats within the meaning of Articles PERSON and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the LAW on the conditions of entry and residence of aliens and the right of asylum . Accordingly , it is not admissible .

He submits a statement from an association for refugees .

This , however , is a new item of evidence which refers to events that were previously argued . Accordingly , it is not admissible .

He further claims that his family has again been persecuted by the henchmen of ORG , an influential local military leader in the GPE region , since their return to the NORP territory . It is claimed that a cousin is currently being detained .

However , the applicant ’s statements , which are brief and vague , are not supported by any credible or decisive evidence capable of proving that the alleged facts are true and that his fears are well - founded . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted the additional information requested by the ORG and confirmed that he wished to pursue the application .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against ORG judgment of DATE . It found , inter alia :

“ On the lawfulness of the removal order :

... Firstly , contrary to what is alleged by Mr PERSON , the expulsion order dated DATE , which sets out the considerations of law and of fact on which it is based , is supported by sufficient grounds ; the prefect , who indicated that the appellant ’s situation had been scrutinised , particularly with regard to his right to family life , examined the appellant ’s personal situation ;

Secondly , the disputed removal order , the sole purpose of which is the removal from the territory of Mr PERSON , is not collective in nature ; in any event , it does not therefore contravene the requirements of LAW No . CARDINAL to LAW ... which prohibits collective expulsions ; nor can Mr PERSON validly rely either on the provisions of LAW ... , which are not applicable to appeal judgments against removal orders , or on the provisions of LAW No . CARDINAL to the said Convention , published by decree of CARDINAL DATE , which are applicable only to aliens residing lawfully on the territory of a ORG ;

On the lawfulness of the additional decision naming the country of destination :

Mr PERSON ’s request for political asylum has been ... refused by decisions of ORG and ORG ; his second request for asylum , submitted on DATE , was rejected by a new decision by ORG DATE ; although Mr PERSON refers to the risk that he would run in the event of a return to GPE , given the situation of civil war that exists in that country , that circumstance is not in itself capable of substantiating the risks alleged by the appellant in the event of return to his country of origin ; he has not submitted any evidence concerning his personal situation which would make it possible to consider as substantiated [ his argument ] that there are circumstances which would constitute a legal impediment to expulsion to his country of origin ; ... ”


Violation of Art. 3;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant had a loud quarrel with his neighbour and assaulted him . Further to the neighbour 's complaint , the police opened criminal proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was taken in custody and placed in investigations ward no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of Novorossiysk * ( ORG CARDINAL г. Новороссийска , “ the facility ” ) .

On DATE ORG of PERSON found the applicant guilty of disorderly behaviour , an offence under LAW of LAW , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

NORP The applicant served the sentence in the same facility . He was released on DATE .

The applicant stayed in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

According to the applicant , each cell measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . Inmates took turns to sleep . CARDINAL sleeping places were available , of which CARDINAL were occupied with water receptacles for washing and flushing the toilet . The water containers were needed as running water was only available for TIME CARDINAL times a day . No bedding was provided to inmates , save for tattered cotton mattresses . DATE and DATE in cell no . CARDINAL the applicant had to sleep without a mattress on metal plates , covering himself with an old , dirty and worn cotton rag .

The Government did not dispute the cell measurements suggested by the applicant . They submitted that each cell had had CARDINAL sleeping places , a full set of bedding had been distributed to each inmate and sleeping berths had been made of metal plates and covered with wadded mattresses .

According to the applicant , the ventilation in cells was only switched on for TIME when “ inspectors ” visited the facility . Windows were covered with steel plates leaving an open slot of QUANTITY . There was no fresh air in the cells .

The Government submitted that cells had been equipped with ventilation . It was switched on and off “ in accordance with the schedule approved by the facility director ” ( order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . A copy of the schedule has not been produced to ORG . On “ especially hot ” days , doors were open to ensure a better circulation of air . At the material time windows had been covered with metal shields which were removed in DATE .

According to the applicant , the lavatory pan sat on an elevation of QUANTITY above the floor . A partition of QUANTITY in height separated it from the rest of the cell . Occasionally an inmate hung a sheet to have some privacy . According to the Government , lavatory pans were located at the entrance and separated from the living area by a brick partition measuring QUANTITY in height and width .

According to the applicant , inmates were given one piece of soap per week for the entire cell population . No laundry detergent was available . According to the Government , each inmate received CARDINAL g of washing soap and CARDINAL g of laundry detergent DATE . Bathing was possible “ regularly ” .

The applicant claimed that a thick , black and footworn layer of dirt had covered the floor . Inmates ' clothing swarmed with lice , spiders and other insects . DATE and DATE cell no . CARDINAL was not once sanitised . DATE and DATE cell no . CARDINAL was sanitised on CARDINAL occasion . In the ORG 's view , the sanitary and hygienic conditions of the cells were up to the applicable standards and insecticide was distributed DATE .

According to the applicant , the facility administration took complaints , requests and letters from inmates once a day , CARDINAL and TIME According to the Government , complaints and requests were taken from inmates during the TIME inspection of cells starting at TIME

The applicant further submitted that the food ration had consisted of bread , millet porridge , boiled pearl barley and no - meat soup . In DATE inmates were fed on CARDINAL occasions with pea soup , soup with pasta and boiled rice .

In DATE the applicant contracted scabies and he received sulphuric and benzyl ointments to treat himself . He was not isolated from other inmates . The applicant 's cellmates who contracted scabies and other skin diseases were not taken out of the cell either . The applicant submits that tuberculosis - infected inmates spent , on several occasions , DATE in his cell . According to the Government , infected inmates were isolated in a special wing . The applicant twice fell ill with a high temperature and he was treated with sulphadimisin and aspirin . CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent outpatient treatment for dermatitis .

By the time of his release , the applicant had lost QUANTITY in weight , he felt short of breath while walking , tired easily , could not run , and suffered from pustules and itching all over his body .

On DATE the applicant was examined in clinic no . CARDINAL of PERSON and issued with a certificate confirming that he suffered from emaciation .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action for damages against the ORG of GPE . He claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by “ inhuman and degrading ” conditions of detention in facility no . CARDINAL . He described the conditions of his detention in detail and relied , in particular , on LAW .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant 's action . It held that the applicant had failed to prove that the officials of facility no . CARDINAL had been liable for pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him . The court noted that the applicant had served his sentence upon the lawful conviction by a competent court and , therefore , the responsibility of the treasury was not engaged .

On DATE ORG upheld , on an appeal by the applicant , the judgment of DATE .

Persons sentenced to no longer than DATE imprisonment may consent to serving the sentence in investigations wards ( LAW ) .

The norm of habitable floor surface per CARDINAL inmate is fixed at QUANTITY in prisons ( LAW ) . Inmates shall have individual sleeping places and bedding , as well as personal hygiene articles ( soap , toothbrush , toothpaste , toilet paper , disposable shavers ) ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that the damage caused to the person or property of a citizen shall be compensated in full by the tortfeasor . Pursuant to LAW , a ORG agency or a ORG official shall be liable to a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Such damage is to be compensated at the expense of the federal or regional treasury .

The relevant extracts from ORG by ORG for ORG Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG 's mandate . All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate ; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered , perhaps significantly . Moreover , the level of overcrowding in a prison , or in a particular part of it , might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint .

A satisfactory programme of activities ( work , education , sport , etc . ) is of crucial importance for the well - being of prisoners ... [ P]risoners can not simply be left to languish for DATE , possibly DATE , locked up in their cells , and this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the cells . The ORG considers that one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of DATE ( TIME or more ) outside their cells , engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature ...

Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise . The requirement that prisoners be allowed TIME of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious ...

Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment ...

The ORG would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding , poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet / washing facilities in the same establishment . The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners .

It is also very important for prisoners to maintain reasonably good contact with the outside world . Above all , a prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships with his family and close friends . The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world ; any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations ... ”

“ CARDINAL . As the ORG pointed out in DATE ORG , prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG 's mandate ( cf . ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) . An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation ; a constant lack of privacy ( even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility ) ; reduced out - of - cell activities , due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available ; overburdened health - care services ; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff . This list is far from exhaustive .

The ORG has been led to conclude on CARDINAL occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across LOC and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention . The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous ORG ...

In a number of countries visited by the ORG , particularly in central and eastern LOC , inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a DATE basis , such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities . The ORG has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when , as is frequently the case , the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions ... Large - capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives ... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level ; further , in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions .

The ORG frequently encounters devices , such as metal shutters , slats , or plates fitted to cell windows , which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation . They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre - trial prisoners . The ORG fully accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners ... [ E]ven when such measures are required , they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air . The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy ... ”


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristaq Traja;Matti Pellonpää;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant is a broadcasting company which was established in DATE and is registered in GPE .

At the relevant time the applicant company broadcast on CARDINAL frequencies in GPE and had a DATE audience of CARDINAL listeners . The principles underlying its operations were democracy and independence .

At the relevant time PERSON poisťovňa a.s . ( “ SP ” ) was a major insurance company in GPE . It was controlled by the ORG through ORG ( PERSON národného majetku – “ the ORG ” ) .

Following the DATE parliamentary elections , ORG ’s management board was appointed through a political agreement between the coalition parties then in power . The coalition included the ORG for a NORP GPE ( PERSON demokratické DATE “ HZDS ” ) and ORG ( PERSON národná strana – “ SNS ” ) .

At that time the majority of seats in the bodies under the ORG ’s control were held by ORG appointees .

On DATE ORG ’s supervisory board removed the individuals appointed by the SNS from the company ’s board of directors and appointed a new management team . The outgoing management team did not accept this move .

On DATE the former management team took over the ORG headquarters . They were assisted by private security guards and a squad of ORG police , who had been assigned to this task by the President of ORG , an SNS appointee . They forced the newly appointed management team to leave the LOC , but DATE the new management , assisted by their own private security service , regained control of the company and its LOC .

The background to this struggle was , essentially , the wish of those involved to participate in ORG ’s privatisation . The removal of the ORG management team caused a serious political crisis at government level .

At the relevant time PERSON was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and PERSON was ORG Secretary at ORG . The posts of ORG Secretaries within ministries were filled through appointments by political parties . They were therefore political posts and did not form part of the civil service .

After the events complained of , Mr NORP was elected as a judge to ORG .

At TIME on DATE the applicant company broadcast the recording of a telephone conversation between PERSON and PERSON in its news programme “ ORG ” .

The broadcast was preceded by comments by the applicant company ’s journalist . The names of the persons involved were mentioned in full . The commentary went as follows :

“ As mentioned in TIME programme , we have managed to obtain a tape recording of a telephone conversation which suggests that [ Mr PERSON ] , the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance , was involved in the events involving PERSON poisťovňa a.s . Naturally , ORG disapproves of any wiretapping unless it is done under a court order . We consider [ the present recording ] unlawful and dissociate ourselves from the manner in which it was obtained . But because , in this case , a matter of general interest is involved , one which can not be concealed ... we seek to carry out our duty to inform the public . At the same time , we would like to ask the competent authorities about the security situation in our country , if wiretapping of ... senior officials is possible . The fact that senior officials are involved in activities concerning the above - mentioned case should be considered by those authorised to deal with it . And now to the tape which , due to its technical quality , is almost unintelligible . The other person speaking over the phone is probably [ Mr NORP ] , ORG Secretary at ORG . ”

Immediately thereafter the recorded conversation between PERSON and PERSON NORP was played . The transcript reads as follows .

Mr K : “ ... the police , with the assistance of the policemen [ and ] some other security guards have entered and seized the building , they have emptied the building ... ”

Mr D : “ But this is peculiar , the involvement of the policemen , what could have been the grounds for their action ... ”

Mr K : “ Certainly , this was a failure by the security guards , those that were there at that moment , but this was a layman ’s approach maybe , because ... It seems the policemen were rather hard according to all the circumstances . You know , the police raid was probably organised through [ Mr H. ] , you know , ORG . Well then , this was all I wanted to say , that there is that ... ”

Mr D : “ Will you be chairing the meeting ? ”

Mr K : “ Yes , but the boss will arrive to speak on CARDINAL items on the agenda . ”

Mr D : “ I see . Otherwise , I have been charged with this task , because he is leaving for PERSON . ”

Mr K : “ Good , it is clear , all I wanted to say ... ”

Mr D : “ Nobody is going to interfere with my business ... ”

Mr K : “ Well , of course not . ”

Mr D : “ As he does not even know yet what I am doing ... ”

Mr K : “ [ The first name of Mr NORP ] , it would therefore be most important ... ”

Mr D : “ I shall go and personally inspect it in the morning , before the meeting starts ... ”

Mr K : “ I would like to ask you to do this , as it will emphasise the fact that they have done it ... ”

Mr D : “ That ’s clear . ”

Mr K : “ I had a phone call from there TIME ... ”

Mr D : “ Very good , I also need to know this in order to speak about it there . ”

Mr K : “ That will be extremely important . ”

Mr D : “ All right then , first thing in the morning I shall submit the report about how things are going ... ”

Mr K : “ Otherwise , you have to turn to me , this lady I have arranged , simply speaking , it is all organised by me , hence ... ”

Mr D : “ Yes , yes . ”

Mr K : “ Even if I am not present , I shall later go directly to the government session , but through this [ PERSON ] , they know for sure , actually they are well - oriented on the subject ... ”

Mr D : “ I have got my instructions . ”

Mr K : “ It is clear , these instructions apply . ”

Mr D : “ Well then , see you . ”

Mr K : “ [ The first name of Mr NORP ] , thank you very much , see you ... bye ... ”

The subsequent commentary by the journalist , in which the full names of those involved were again mentioned , stated .

“ And let us start to clarify things for a moment . The dealings around PERSON poisťovňa surfaced in public on DATE . To put it simply : the CARDINAL managers of PERSON poisťovňa DATE let us call them Mr [ T. ] and Co. – were pushed out of their building after DATE by a private security service . These security guards had been summoned by the new management team of PERSON poisťovňa DATE let us call them PERSON [ B. ] and Co. Mr [ T. ] and Co. were supported by the police and , as documented by the taped phone conversation , it is evident that the President of ORG , ORG ] is a protégé of ORG . The former management team , [ T. ] and ORG , seized the building with police assistance and , as has been clear from the start , this was the building of PERSON poisťovňa . This happened on DATE , and on DATE these managers were again sitting in their chairs . As follows from the taped phone conversation , it is clear that the persons spoke together DATE , DATE , and that the ORG Secretary at ORG , [ Mr NORP ] , was a somewhat easier partner for Minister [ PERSON ] than the Minister of ORG , [ Mr L. ] , who was in PERSON that DATE . We have verified this fact . Just to complete the information , it should be noted that DATE government session was chaired by Mr [ K. ] . Owing to the poor technical quality of the recording of the phone conversation between [ Mr K. ] and [ Mr D. ] , I think it would be worthwhile listening to it once again . ”

“ We asked for the opinion of ORG . [ ORG ] , the ORG ’s spokesman , ... did not know of the contents of the recording as it had not yet been made public in GPE . Understandably , he did not therefore want to react to it . We expect the response of the Ministry DATE . We also turned to Minister [ PERSON ] , who stated :

‘ Look , I do not comment on things that are contrary to democracy . I think that journalists should perhaps choose a different approach since government officials have been tapped . So I will not comment on something that has been published without my consent . Undoubtedly , this information is about the fact that there has been certain pressure ... in PERSON poisťovňa.’ ”

Mr NORP filed a civil action against the applicant company in ORG ( Okresný súd ) for protection of his personal integrity .

He argued that the company had broadcast the telephone conversation despite the fact that it had been obtained in an illegal manner . The broadcast had interfered with his personal integrity by harming his reputation , dignity and respect for his person among the public . In addition , the statements broadcast included distorted and incomplete information that was capable of discrediting him .

The plaintiff also referred to the fact that the information had subsequently been picked up by the NORP TV station ORG , and that several articles had been published in the NORP dailies ORG , ORG and PERSON republika . As a result , the trust between the Minister of ORG and the plaintiff had been undermined .

He acknowledged that , at the time that the recording was made , he had spoken with several persons and admitted that it was his voice on the recording . The recording and the comments as such had been taken out of context , and the telephone conversation had not been broadcast in its entirety . The plaintiff denied that the subject of the conversation had been the events as presented by the commentator , since his position did not authorise him to intervene in the case as suggested in the broadcast .

NORP In its observations in reply , the applicant company stated that the recording of the conversation had been deposited in its mailbox by unknown persons . Speculation about such a recording had been circulating in DATE prior to the broadcast , and as a result the coalition government had been threatened with a split . Prior to the broadcast the applicant company ’s employees had tried to contact the persons concerned , in accordance with the company ’s internal rules . Although the tape was almost unintelligible , as an information medium the applicant company had felt obliged to inform the public and to demonstrate what was going on in political circles at that time . In his commentary on the material broadcast , the journalist had stated that the applicant company disapproved of the manner in which the recording had been obtained .

ORG heard the parties and CARDINAL witnesses and examined a transcript of the impugned broadcast and other documentary evidence .

In a judgment delivered on DATE , ORG ordered the applicant company to offer the plaintiff a written apology and to broadcast that apology within DATE . It was to read as follows :

“ We apologise to [ Mr NORP ] , the former ORG Secretary at ORG of GPE , now judge of ORG of GPE , for having broadcast an unlawfully obtained recording of a telephone conversation on DATE at TIME ”

NORP The applicant company was further ordered to pay CARDINAL NORP korunas to Mr NORP in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , and to reimburse his legal costs .

The ORG based its judgment , inter alia , on the following grounds . The applicant , as a licensed radio broadcasting company , had the right to use audio recordings for scientific and artistic purposes and for news reporting without a person ’s previous consent . However , under the last sentence of LAW of LAW , such use should not conflict with the justified interest of the person concerned . The applicant company had not been prevented from commenting on the situation which had arisen and from presenting its views . In order to do so , however , it had not been necessary to broadcast a tape obtained in an illegal manner .

ORG further noted that the plaintiff ’s dignity as a public official had been diminished as the issue had been commented on in the press and on television . It therefore considered it appropriate to order the applicant company to compensate the plaintiff in respect of non - pecuniary damage under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW .

The applicant company appealed . It maintained that the LAW did not subject the use of recordings to the prior establishment of their lawfulness and that it had not been formally shown that the recording had been unlawfully obtained . The plaintiff was a public official and the contents of the recording concerned the exercise of a public function . The recording had been discussed for DATE prior to being broadcast . By broadcasting the telephone conversation , the applicant company had fulfilled its task of informing the public about issues of public interest . Finally , the applicant pointed out that the plaintiff had become a constitutional judge in the meantime , and that it had not been shown that he had suffered any damage as a result of the broadcast .

On DATE ORG ( Krajský súd ) upheld the judgment of ORG . ORG admitted that imparting of information by the media was an important instrument for supervising political power in a NORP society . Informing on and criticising matters of public interest were among the media ’s most important tasks , and constitutional protection of such interests was ensured by the guarantees of freedom of expression and of the right to information . However , in the case under consideration the freedom of communication of users of telecommunications services had been violated , and an interference with the right to respect for privacy had occurred as a result of publicly broadcasting the telephone conversation . That fact was at the heart of the applicant company ’s unjustified interference with the plaintiff ’s personal rights since , as ORG held , protection of privacy extended to the conversations of public officials .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides for protection of a person ’s integrity and privacy . Restrictions are permissible only in cases provided for by law .

Article CARDINAL guarantees secrecy of correspondence , other communications and written messages delivered by post , and of personal information ( § CARDINAL ) . The privacy of letters , other communications and written messages , kept privately or delivered by post or otherwise , including communications made by telephone , telegraph and other means , can not be violated by anyone except in cases specified by law ( § CARDINAL ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL guarantees freedom of expression and the right to information . Paragraph CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that everyone has the right to express his or her views and to freely seek , receive and impart ideas and information . Under paragraph CARDINAL , freedom of expression and the right to seek and impart information can be restricted by means of a law , where such restriction is necessary in a NORP society for the protection of , inter alia , the rights and freedoms of others .

Under LAW , as in force at the relevant time , ORG authorities and local self - government authorities were obliged to provide information about their activities in an appropriate manner . Further details in this respect were to be laid down in a special law .

The right to protection of a person ’s personal integrity is guaranteed by Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW .

According to LAW natural persons have the right to protection of their personality , in particular of their life and health , civil and human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that audio recordings concerning natural persons or their statements of a personal nature may only be made or used with the consent of the person concerned . Under paragraph CARDINAL of that Article such consent is not required where the documents or recordings are used for official purposes in accordance with the law . LAW provides that pictures and audio recordings can also be made and used in an appropriate manner without the consent of the person concerned for scientific and artistic purposes and also for news reporting by means of the press , film , radio and television . Such use can not , however , be contrary to the justified interests of the person concerned .

Pursuant to LAW , all natural persons have the right to request an order restraining any unjustified interference with their personal integrity , an order cancelling out the effects of such interference and an award of appropriate compensation .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that in cases where the satisfaction afforded under LAW is insufficient , in particular because the injured party ’s dignity or social standing has been considerably diminished , the injured party is also entitled to financial compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

The Act regulates ORG ( občan ) use of the press and mass media in accordance with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and the press ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Part ( časť ) V governs protection against abuse of freedom of expression and the press . It contains , inter alia , the following rules .

Legal protection is afforded to any person who makes use of his or her freedom of expression and the press ( section DATE ) ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the publishing of information that threatens the legally protected interests of society or of citizens is considered an abuse of freedom of expression or the press . Protection of society and citizens against abuse of freedom of expression and the press is entrusted to the publisher , the chief editor , the editor and the author . Details are to be laid down in special legislation which , at the same time , will regulate the liability of the publisher for damage caused by the press or other mass media .


The applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a member of the Conseil d’État and ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant and ORG formed a public company , PERSON , whose registered office was in GPE . On DATE the company , which was already in financial difficulty , borrowed MONEY ( FRF ) from GPE , ORG ’s nephew . Under the terms of an agreement made on DATE between the applicant , ORG and GPE , ORG undertook to reimburse his nephew the sum of ORG CARDINAL owed by the company . The applicant undertook to guarantee ORG the reimbursement of that same amount “ that PERSON will owe him once [ ORG ] has paid that company ’s debt to [ FAC ] ” .

As PERSON was unable to repay ORG , the applicant paid him a total of ORG CARDINAL pursuant to his undertaking . On DATE ORG made an order for the judicial reorganisation of the company . That order was followed by an order for its liquidation on DATE . As ORG had failed to lodge a proof of his debt with the representative of the creditors of the company , the applicant considered it to be extinguished pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON of DATE , which meant that his own obligation as guarantor of the company ’s debt to ORG was likewise extinguished . He therefore did not pay ORG the balance of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL of debt that had been extinguished . Subsequently , considering himself ruined , he left GPE and returned to GPE .

On DATE ORG brought an action against the applicant in ORG for payment of the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL together with statutory interest , damages , expenses and legal costs .

On DATE the applicant brought a counterclaim against ORG for rescission of the agreement of DATE and restitution of the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL he had already paid .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay ORG the sum claimed plus interest , making a total of over FRF CARDINAL . The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE , which held , in particular , that the applicant ’s undertaking amounted not to an ordinary guarantee that had been extinguished with the primary debt , but as a first - call guarantee that remained in place despite the extinguishment of the primary debt .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . On DATE he lodged written submissions in which he argued that his undertaking should be classified as an ordinary guarantee .

On DATE P.B. made an application to the President of ORG under Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW for an order removing the appeal from the list for failure to comply with the impugned decision .

That application was granted by an order of DATE removing the appeal from the list of cases pending before ORG . The order stated :

“ Although he has not complied with the orders made in the judgment , [ the applicant ] seeks to oppose an order being made pursuant to the provisions of Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ...

In the instant case , [ the applicant ] has failed to show that he has taken any steps apt to demonstrate his intention to comply with the decision of the courts below and has not pleaded any personal circumstances that give rise to a danger or presumption that compliance will entail manifestly unreasonable consequences . ”

No sums were paid under the judgment within the time - limit of DATE from the date of that order . On DATE the applicant sought a declaration that the appeal had lapsed . On DATE the President of ORG made a declaration that the appeal had lapsed pursuant to LAW .

New Code of Civil Procedure

“ Proceedings shall lapse if none of the parties take any steps for DATE . ”

“ Except in cases in which an appeal on points of law acts as a bar to execution of the impugned decision , the President may , on application by the respondent and after obtaining the opinion of ORG and the parties , order the removal of the case from the list if the appellant fails to show that he or she has to comply with the impugned decision , or unless it appears to the President that execution may entail manifestly unreasonable consequences .

The President shall grant permission for the case to be restored to the list on proof of compliance with the impugned decision . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

The applicant was a member of a housing cooperative . Having paid a sum of money , she expected to receive a certain flat from the cooperative in a newly built block of flats . However , the applicant was then expelled from the cooperative . The flat was given to Mr L instead . The latter sold the flat to PERSON .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the housing cooperative in ORG of GPE . She sought the annulment of the cooperative 's decision to expel her and give the flat to L. She also sought compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage and recognition of her title to the flat .

In the meantime , PERSON resold the flat to PERSON On DATE the judge issued a charging order in respect of the flat .

In DATE the applicant amended her claims , seeking the annulment of the purchase contracts by PERSON and K and recognition of her right to live in the flat in question .

According to the ORG , several hearings DATE had to be adjourned in order to take account of the applicant 's amended claims and enable the parties to collect evidence in support of their claims .

According to the Government , in DATE one hearing was adjourned because of the defendants ; another one was adjourned on account of their and the lay judges ' failure to attend ; and CARDINAL further hearings were adjourned to enable the applicant to submit amended claims .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected her claims . The applicant appealed . After complying with the court 's instructions concerning court fees , on DATE ORG examined her appeal and upheld the above judgment as regards the rejection of the non - pecuniary claim but ordered a fresh hearing in respect of the remaining claims .

Upon the applicant 's complaint about the length of proceedings before ORG , a judge of ORG carried out a preliminary inquiry and concluded on DATE that a further inquiry would be appropriate . Its outcome remains unclear .

In the meantime , having re - examined the remaining claims , on DATE ORG upheld most of the claims against the defendant , including the applicant 's claim for title to the flat in question . On DATE ORG issued an additional judgment amending the earlier one and ordering PERSON eviction . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant applied for registration of her title to the flat . On DATE ORG refused to issue a title certificate to the applicant because there was a valid charging order in respect of the flat . However , on DATE the applicant was provided with the title certificate .

On DATE the President of ORG lodged a request for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the judgment on the ground that the defendant had not been informed of the hearing .

Upon a request of the Acting President of ORG , on DATE the ORG court quashed the judgments of CARDINAL June and CARDINAL DATE in part and ordered a re - examination of the relevant claims .

It appears that , on an unspecified date , the title registration in respect of the flat at issue was revoked in view of the annulment of the court decisions on which it had been based .

In view of her advancing age and declining health , the applicant was represented by her daughter , Ms P , at most hearings throughout the proceedings .

According to the Government , in DATE at least QUANTITY hearings were listed and adjourned because the parties had failed to appear . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because the judge was on sick leave , and another one because the defendants failed to attend . Each adjournment resulted in delays of DATE .

In DATE CARDINAL hearings were listed but adjourned because the parties failed to attend or sought to adduce evidence or appoint new representatives . On DATE the applicant submitted amended claims .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled on the merits of the applicant 's claims as amended . With reference to the judgment of DATE in its valid part , the court reconfirmed the unlawfulness of the cooperative 's decisions to expel the applicant and give the flat to L. The court accepted that the applicant had honoured her contract with the cooperative and had thus acquired a claim to a particular flat , the CARDINAL which was given to PERSON to a DATE ruling by ORG , the court refused to annul the flat purchases by PERSON . and then PERSON because they were protected “ purchasers in good faith ” within the meaning of LAW ; the court indicated , however , that a claim under LAW would be a proper course of action ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The court also observed that any of the above claims could be brought by an “ owner ” . The court reiterated that only an official certificate from the ORG register could prove ownership title ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the court refused to accept the applicant 's membership card as valid proof of her title to the flat at issue ( see , however , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The court also rejected the applicant 's eviction claim against PERSON , because only the proven owner could seek eviction . However , the court awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and RUB CARDINAL in litigation costs ( lawyer 's fees , photocopying fees , compensation for loss of time ) . The court refused to award the applicant 's representative P 's travel expenses between her residence town ( GPE ) and GPE .

The applicant appealed , contending that the DATE ruling of ORG could not be applied to events in DATE . On DATE ORG set aside the judgment in the part concerning compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage and upheld it in the remaining part . The appeal court held that ORG had only determined the constitutional meaning of the relevant provisions of LAW in force at the material time .

In DATE Ms K obtained an official certificate confirming her title to the flat . It appears that she sold it to another person in DATE .

By an order of DATE , ORG lifted the charging order in respect of the flat in question . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld this order .

On an unspecified date the applicant applied to ORG for enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG indicated that the judgment could not be enforced against the housing cooperative because it had ceased its activity in DATE .

On DATE ORG refused leave for supervisory review of the judgments of DATE and DATE .

NORP In reply to the applicant 's complaint concerning the above civil dispute , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG advised her to sue the housing cooperative for damages in view of their failure to honour their contractual obligations .

In separate proceedings , on an unspecified date , the authorities opened a criminal investigation into the applicant 's allegations that the private company 's acts had deprived her of her flat . In DATE the case was discontinued because the statutory time - limit for criminal prosecution had expired .

Under LAW CARDINAL , a voided transaction does not give rise to any legal consequences beyond those related to its annulment , and is void ab initio . In a voided transaction the parties should return to each other what was received or , if not practicable , they should pay compensation . Under LAW , the first owner can claim property back from a purchaser in good faith who has acquired it from an unauthorised seller without knowing or being in a position to know that the seller was unauthorised . However , such a claim can only arise if the property was lost , stolen or otherwise taken out of the first owner 's control .

By a ruling of DATE , ORG interpreted LAW as not allowing the first owner to reclaim his property from a purchaser in good faith unless there is a special legislative provision to this effect . Instead , a claim vindicating prior rights ( виндикационный иск ) could be lodged under LAW .

Under LAW , ownership title to a building or other newly built premises requiring ORG registration , arises from the time of such registration .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before ORG , seeking the review of a resolution adopted by the community of flatowners of the house in which she lives .

Following several hearings and an interruption of DATE due to the death of CARDINAL of the respondents , ORG delivered a judgment on DATE .

NORP On appeal , ORG adopted a partial judgment concerning the substitution of a legal statement , while remitting some claims on DATE .

In the resumed proceedings the first instance court discontinued the proceedings on DATE . However , the review bench of ORG quashed this decision and instructed the first instance court to resume the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment which was appealed by the applicant . The proceedings are now pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before ORG , requesting the court to establish the invalidity of yet another resolution of the flatowners .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment , finding partly for the applicant . On appeal , on DATE ORG gave judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's petition for review .