Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The present applications , concerning the living conditions of NORP citizens of GPE origin living in the village of GPE , GPE , follow CARDINAL other applications that have been joined ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The said applications were lodged with ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , by CARDINAL NORP nationals of GPE origin living in the above - mentioned village , as a consequence of the inter - ethnic violent events of DATE which led to the killing of CARDINAL people of GPE origin and the burning of CARDINAL GPE houses .

NORP The CARDINAL applications mentioned above have resulted in a friendly settlement agreement ( see GPE and Others v. GPE ( no CARDINAL ) ( friendly settlement ) , DATE ) , concerning CARDINAL of the CARDINAL original applicants and in a judgment on the merits concerning the remaining CARDINAL applicants ( see GPE and Others v. GPE ( no CARDINAL ) , DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VII ) where the ORG found a violation , inter alia , of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ living conditions .

The applicants in the present cases , some of them also parties to the proceedings in the cases of NORP and Others v. GPE ( no CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , cited above , are CARDINAL - six NORP nationals of GPE origin . They all used to live in the village of GPE , GPE . Since the events of DATE some applicants have returned to GPE , while others have been living in various parts of the country . Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON - Florin GPE and PERSON are currently living in GPE ; Mr Petrică - Florin Lăcătuş , PERSON and PERSON Rostaş are living in GPE ; PERSON , PERSON and PERSON are living in GPE ; PERSON is living in GPE ; while PERSON is living in GPE .

The name and DATE of birth of each applicant , the date of the lodging of each application and the blood relationships between the applicants are described in the attached table ( see annex below ) .

On DATE the applicants , who originally either had no representation or were represented by some of the other applicants , sent powers of attorney authorising PERSON to represent them before the ORG .

Consequently , all applicants in all the applications are currently represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .

NORP The present cases originate in the events which took place in DATE in the village of GPE and which are summarised in the judgments of NORP and Others , ( no CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , cited above . In so far as they concern the current applicants they may be summarised as follows .

The applicants are mainly the children , the grandchildren , the nephews and the nieces of the CARDINAL original applicants , victims of the events of DATE . Many of them were minors at the time of the events and were living with their relatives .

In the aftermath of the events they were forced to live in hen - houses , stables , pigsties , windowless cellars or in cold and inappropriate conditions ( sleeping on concrete and muddy floors , in crowded conditions or in outhouse kitchens without a proper roof or windows ) together with their families . Those conditions lasted for DATE and in some cases they have not been fully remedied to date .

Many applicants consider that as a result they fell ill and developed a number of medical conditions , in particular heart conditions resulting in heart attacks , meningitis and diabetes . Some of them have now also developed mental disabilities . Although they all had access over DATE to treatment provided by the national health care system , their limited financial resources and the alleged discriminatory treatment they were faced with in the hospitals and medical private practices prevented them from curing their illnesses .

Only some of the applicants have been party to the domestic proceedings . They include , among others , PERSON Raria ” Rostaş ( NORP ) , Tiberiu PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and her brothers PERSON , Petru - Doru Lăcătuş and PERSON ( DATE applicants as heirs of their mother PERSON ) . However , none of the said applicants appealed the judgment delivered by the first - instance court during the course of the civil proceedings brought against the third parties convicted for the destruction of their homes .

The applicants , who were minors at that time and were legally represented by their parents or grandparents , were not included as parties to these proceedings . They consider , however , that ORG had an obligation under LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW , to represent their best interests and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings .

CARDINAL ) The facts of each application , partly in dispute by the parties , can be summarised as follows :

The applicants declared that they had fled the village after they had witnessed the burning and destruction of PERSON and PERSON LOC Rostaş’ houses . They sought refuge in the forest , in the fields , in the neighbouring villages and with relatives . When they attempted to return to the village they were met by an angry mob and chased by the police , who fired on them . They declare that their houses were burned down or destroyed by the mob , together with their belongings . Consequently , they were forced to sleep outdoors for various periods of time with no food or clothing . In the aftermath of the events , they were forced to live in pigsties for DATE with no furniture and some of them , like PERSON , were beaten by the police . PERSON , PERSON and PERSON declared that as a result of the living conditions they became physically or mentally ill . In his letter of DATE Costică Moldovan informed the ORG that he was not party to the civil proceedings before the domestic courts . He argued that the civil proceedings depended on the outcome of the criminal proceedings , and the latter had been rejected for political reasons . Consequently , he did not have the opportunity to lodge his complaints before the domestic courts . Lenuţa and PERSON Rostaş declared that CARDINAL room of their parental home had been renovated with ORG funds . PERSON considers that he was never able to graduate from school because he was allegedly discriminated against by his colleagues .

The Government submitted that Costică and PERSON continued to live in GPE and that PERSON had completed the fifth grade at school . Social welfare visits conducted at ORG ’s home in DATE showed that her family was living in a CARDINAL - room house with gas and electricity supply . According to a letter of DATE from ORG ( ORG ) , DATE and DATE PERSON was registered as suffering from a medium degree of learning disability . PERSON - Cristureanu LANGUAGE was living with his parents in DATE and their home was not affected by the events . With the exception of PERSON , who lives in GPE and has completed the fourth grade at school , Lenuţa , PERSON and ORG Rostaş live at no CARDINAL PERSON and have completed the fifth , seventh and second grades at school , respectively . Their GPE home was rebuilt with Government funds . Both PERSON and PERSON have completed the third grade at school .

The applicant declared that on DATE part of her house and all her belongings were destroyed by the mob , leaving her and her children without shelter . In the aftermath of the events her children became ill because of the inhuman conditions they were forced to live in . She was party to the domestic proceedings and was awarded damages of CARDINAL lei ( ROL ) for the partial destruction of her house by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG . She did not appeal against the judgment . CARDINAL . The Government submitted that the applicant was living at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events . ORG awarded the applicant DATE ( ORG ) in damages , on the ground that according to the expert report available in the file only the windows of the applicant ’s house had been broken as a result of the events . Moreover , according to the said judgment , the applicant declared before the domestic courts that only the windows of her house , CARDINAL earrings , CARDINAL icons , a lamp , an armchair and a bed had been destroyed as a result of the events . This contradicts her statement before the ORG , where she declared that her house was burned down together with many of her belongings .

The applicant declared that in DATE she was forced to abandon her home , together with her daughter , her mother , her partner and her siblings . She declares that both she and her daughter have mental health problems as a consequence of the events , and her belongings were destroyed when her mother ’s house was set on fire .

The Government submitted that at the time of the events the applicant was living at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni , where she continues to reside to date . She had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she was registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services .

The applicant declared that at the time of the events he was serving in the army . In DATE he returned to the village and he was threatened and hit with stones thrown by some of the villagers . They followed him to his mother ’s house , where they continued throwing stones , which damaged the windows and the roof of the house . Following the incident , the applicant spent the rest of his leave at his sister ’s house ( PERSON DATE application no . CARDINAL ) located in another village . Because he was afraid for his and his family ’s safety , he would return to the village of GPE only at TIME . Since DATE the applicant has been living in GPE .

The Government submitted that the applicant was not present in the village at the time of the events . At the time of the events his official residence was at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni . However , he has been living in GPE since DATE .

NORP The applicant declared that at the time of the events she was visiting her relative , PERSON , and was alone in her relative ’s house together with her relative ’s CARDINAL minor children when she was alerted by her mother , PERSON , that an angry mob had started burning GPE houses in the village . She gathered her relatives and took them all to her house in the village of GPE . The applicant believes that both she and her family were affected by the events , in so far as the police stopped CARDINAL non - Roma individuals from setting fire to the applicant ’s home located at FAC . Moreover , she could sell her house in GPE only for a very low price .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living at no . CARDINAL PERSON at the time of the events . DATE the applicant was registered as living in Luduş and she had never lived in GPE .

The applicants alleged that their house and belongings had been destroyed by the angry mob . In the aftermath of the events , they had had to live for DATE in stables with no food , electricity or heating . Later on they had sought shelter with family and friends . They declared that as a result of the stress they were subjected to they had become mentally and physically ill . They are allegedly suffering from various degrees of handicap , diabetes and other ailments they have developed as a result of the events , such as loss of hair in GPE case . PERSON , PERSON and PERSON consider that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON declare that they were discriminated against at school and PERSON stated that she is currently living on a rubbish dump in GPE . In her letter of CARDINAL DATE PERSON informed the Court that she was one of the original CARDINAL applicants and that she was awarded LAW as a result of the friendly settlement agreement .

The Government submitted that at the time of the events the applicants were living at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni . With the exception of ORG and PERSON , all of them continue to live at the same address . Social welfare visits conducted at the applicants’ home in DATE , DATE and DATE showed that the house of the PERSON family had electricity and gas , CARDINAL rooms , a bathroom and a kitchen and the family ’s income consisted of ORG “ GPE Lăcătuş’ pension and the child allowance awarded by ORG for the upbringing of minor children . At the same time Ancuţa - Lucreţia Lăcătuş was living in a house consisting of a room and a kitchen equipped with gas and electricity and located in the same courtyard as her GPE house , and her income consisted of an allowance for her son . PERSON had completed the eighth grade at school in DATE . On DATE , DATE , and DATE and DATE GPE , ORG , GPE - Valentin and Ancuţa - Lucreţia Lăcătuş were diagnosed with various degrees of mental disability which they had had since DATE and DATE . However , they had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioners they are registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services .

The applicants alleged that in DATE they witnessed the destruction of their house and belongings . They were forced to abandon their house , and sought refuge in a neighbouring village , where they remained for DATE with no food or clothes and slept in the fields . Tiberiu PERSON declares that he was awarded ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in pecuniary damages for the destruction of his house by ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . However , he did not appeal against the judgment on the ground that he had left to work abroad and no one was at home to notify him . The judgment has not been enforced to date , although on DATE the applicant was informed by the enforcement officer ’s office that the judgment had become enforceable and the applicant needed to pay the enforcement fees . They also declare that they had had to borrow money from third parties in order to restore CARDINAL room of their house and repair their belongings . Moreover , they had developed health problems as a result of the events and the overcrowded living conditions . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE Tiberiu PERSON informed the ORG that ORG had died by drowning and that he would like to continue his application .

The Government submitted that Tiberiu NORP , PERSON , ORG NORP , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were living at no . CARDINAL GPE at the time of the events and they continue to live there . They had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner they are registered with and by the GPE medical assistance services . PERSON , PERSON and Crîşmaru Moldovan were not living in GPE at the time of the events . DATE the official legal residence of PERSON was no . CARDINAL PERSON and starting from DATE no . CARDINAL Crizantemelor Street , PERSON . In DATE Florin Rostaş’ official residence was changed to no . CARDINAL GPE , where he continues to live . In DATE Florin dropped out of school . Currently the official residence of Crîsmaru Moldovan is no . CARDINAL Tineretului Street in GPE . In DATE Crîşmaru and ORG completed the sixth and fourth grades at school respectively . In DATE PERSON completed the sixth grade , but she no longer lives in the village . In DATE Dolfi Rostaş had completed the fifth grade and in DATE he dropped out of school , although he continues to live in the village . Currently PERSON lives in the village of PERSON .

The applicant declared that on DATE he was living with his grandmother , whose house was burned down . He allegedly had to live in inhuman conditions for DATE , was forced to sleep in a pigsty in DATE , was refused treatment for his illnesses by the doctor , was beaten up by the police and was discriminated against at school . Consequently , he was forced to leave GPE for GPE . He declared that he had become ill as a result of the conditions he was forced to live in for DATE , and had had to undergo surgery . Moreover , he considers that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as party to the proceedings .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with his grandparents at ORG at the time of the events . He is currently living in GPE . In DATE all CARDINAL members of his family were living in the kitchen of his parental house , which had been partially destroyed . The applicant and his family received some assistance from the authorities over DATE . They were given CARDINAL blankets in DATE , ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE , and their house was rebuilt in DATE . On DATE , according to ORG ) some more work needed to be done on the applicant ’s house : the replacement of CARDINAL windows and CARDINAL doors , the reinforcement of the rear wall , paving around the foundations and the installation of drainpipes .

The applicants declared that their house and belongings had been burned down or destroyed . They all had to leave the village with no clothes or food . The police refused to help them during the events and they declared that their house had not been rebuilt to date because they did not have title to the house or the land it was built on . Consequently they were all forced to live for DATE in a damp cellar . Moreover , they continue to live in overcrowded conditions in another village , sharing CARDINAL rooms with CARDINAL other people . They all suffer from various physical and mental health problems because of the dampness and the cold they were exposed to for DATE . The children were discriminated against at school and could not attend school any more . They consider that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings .

The Government submitted that PERSON and his children were living in GPE at the time of the events in a house that was burned down . They all moved to the village of PERSON , where they still live .

The applicants declared that in DATE their parental home was burned down and they were forced to leave the village . For DATE they lived in the forest with no food or clothes and slept on the ground . Consequently , they became ill with tuberculosis and other lung and kidney diseases . They were allowed to return to the village only in DATE , but continued to be discriminated against both at school and on the labour market . They consider that ORG had failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and introduce them as parties to the proceedings . Petrică - Florin and PERSON declared that they had left GPE and were currently living in GPE on a rubbish dump .

The Government submitted that the applicants were living with their parents at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events and were still living in the village . However , only ORG is still living with his parents at no . CARDINAL . PERSON is living at no . CARDINAL with his friend and PERSON is living at no . CARDINAL . They all attended school in GPE , ORG and ORG - Stelian have completed CARDINAL grades , while PERSON has completed CARDINAL . They have always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner they are registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services .

The applicant declared that in DATE her GPE house was burned down . The house was only partially rebuilt and therefore she had to live in the DATE house even during DATE . For DATE she was forced to sleep on the floor and suffered from the cold DATE ; she had no money for medication . Consequently , she became ill . Her parental home was still not finished . She was discriminated against at school even though she had successfully completed CARDINAL grades and had enrolled in a technical college in LOC . Here she continued to be subject to treatment contrary to LAW . She is currently working in GPE to support her family . She considers that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with her parents at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events . She continued to live in the village at the same address . She attended school in the village and completed CARDINAL grades in DATE . She had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she was registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services .

The applicants declared that ORG NORP was dead and his widow PERSON was continuing his application . Their GPE and GPE house was burnt down and they were forced to leave the village and live for DATE in a basement and a shed until their parental home was rebuilt . As a result of the conditions they were forced to live in they became ill . Moreover , they continued to be discriminated against at school and in society . They consider that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and introduce them as parties to the proceedings . PERSON declared that she currently lived in GPE and earned her living by begging , while ORG NORP lived in GPE .

The Government submitted that all the applicants with the exception of ORG , PERSON and ORG NORP lived at no . QUANTITY Hădăreni . PERSON , PERSON and PERSON do not attend school . PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Moldovan have completed the seventh , eighth and first grades , respectively . PERSON , ORG and Crina - Simina Moldovan live at no . CARDINAL PERSON and they have completed the eighth , eighth and seventh grade respectively . The applicants’ parental home at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni was rebuilt with Government funds .

The applicant declared that she provided shelter in her house located in the village of ORG for her mother and her mother ’s husband after her mother ’s house was burned down . Moreover , her mother and her mother ’s family lived with her until DATE , when their house was rebuilt . She alleged that as a direct consequence of the events in GPE she had been threatened by her neighbours in PERSON with the burning of her house and her children started being discriminated against at school . They were allegedly also refused medical treatment by the local doctor .

The Government submitted that the applicant did not live in GPE at the time of the events and she does not live there now . In DATE her official place of residence was no . CARDINAL PERSON .

The applicants allege that their husband and father died following the events of DATE . Consequently , they had to leave their home and go to the neighbouring villages . They declare that for DATE they had to live in the fields with no food or clothes , which caused them to become ill . They are still homeless .

The Government submitted that PERSON husband was killed on DATE by CARDINAL other GPE citizens ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) with no causal link between his death and the events of DATE . The applicants were living , and still live , at no . CARDINAL Mărtineşti .

The applicant alleges that following the events in DATE he became mentally ill . He declares that he was saved from the flames which burned down his GPE house by his grandparents . His belongings were destroyed by the fire and his parental home has not been rebuilt to date . He was discriminated against at school and therefore completed CARDINAL grades . He considers that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and introduce him as party to the proceedings . He is currently living in GPE .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with his grandmother at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events . The applicant attended school in the village until DATE . He is currently enrolled in sixth grade but he abandoned school . He continues to live with his grandmother , who is also raising him . On DATE ORG working within ORG ( ORG ) decided to entrust the applicant to his grandparents on account of his family situation ( his father was in prison and his mother had abandoned him ) , following a social enquiry which examined the living conditions of his grandmother and assessed whether he could be entrusted to her for upbringing . DATE he was monitored by the relevant local authorities and offered assistance relevant to his needs . On DATE ORG diagnosed the applicant with “ minor mental disability and behavioural problems ” and acknowledged that the applicant has a third - degree mental disability . He has always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner he is registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services . On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the special support measures awarded to the applicant and the special allowance given to his grandmother . His medical file of DATE states that the applicant ’s condition was present at his birth .

The applicants allege that their GPE house was burned down in DATE and has not yet been rebuilt . Their family sought refuge at their GPE house , but that house was also burned down . They left the village and hid in the woods for DATE with no food or clothes . Consequently , as a result of the cold they became physically and mentally ill . The applicants also declare that as a result of the events they were discriminated against at school and were unable to graduate . Eventually , on an unspecified date they moved to the village of NORP . They consider that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings .

The Government alleges that the applicants , with the exception of PERSON , lived with their mother at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events . DATE PERSON attended school in GPE . Currently , PERSON and PERSON live at nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ORG respectively , and they have always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner they are registered with and by the ORG medical assistance services . PERSON is being treated for diabetes . PERSON was living in the village of GPE at the time of the events and she is currently still registered as living in the same village , as a farmer . Moreover , her mother did not mention her in her statement following the events of GPE where she declared that she was living in the village with her other QUANTITY children . On DATE and DATE the ORG local authorities twice visited PERSON ’s address at no . CARDINAL Pinticu to check whether she is eligible for social welfare .

The applicant declared that at the time of the conflict she was living with her parents at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni . They were forced to leave the village for DATE and did not have a proper place to sleep . As a result she developed a heart condition and she continues to have to use special medication . Moreover , for DATE her family had to share a single room with the roof and the windows covered with cellophane . She stated that she was discriminated against by her school teachers and consequently she had to abandon school .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with her parents at the time of the events . DATE she attended school in the village , but in DATE she stopped going to school . Currently she lives in her own house in the village at no . CARDINAL and is the beneficiary of social aid awarded by ORG . She has always benefited from adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she is registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services .

The applicants alleged that in DATE their house was burned down . They were forced to leave their house and were not allowed by the local police to return to the village . Consequently , they had to sleep outdoors and they became physically and mentally ill . The same local police used mace on them and beat up PERSON Moldovan ’s wife . She allegedly lodged a criminal complaint against the police with no results . PERSON “ Costică ” NORP declared that his wife , whose application he continues , died as a result of the fear caused by the beating . PERSON alleges that as a result of the events he started being discriminated against at school and had to abandon school . Moreover , PERSON and PERSON consider that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings .

The Government submitted that the applicants lived at no CARDINALA Hădăreni at the time of the events . Their house was rebuilt in DATE from Government funds . On DATE , according to the ORG , more work needed to be done on the applicants’ house : the replacement of CARDINAL windows and CARDINAL doors , the reinforcement of the rear wall , paving around the foundations and installation of drainpipes .

The applicant alleged that as a result of the events of DATE her parental home was destroyed and she was forced to sleep on the floor for a long time . Consequently , she developed a number of lung problems . Moreover , at school she was discriminated against by her teachers and classmates and as a result of the stress she had to endure at school she developed psychological problems . She considers that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce her as party to the proceedings .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with her grandmother at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events . On DATE ORG decided to entrust the applicant to her grandparents on account of her family situation ( her father was in prison and her mother had abandoned her ) , following a social enquiry which examined her grandmother ’s living conditions and assessed whether the applicant could be entrusted to her for upbringing . Until DATE the applicant was granted a special allowance because she had been entrusted to her grandparents to be brought up . From that date the allowance was discontinued by ORG on the ground that the applicant ’s father had been released from prison and he was living with her and her grandparents . Starting from DATE the applicant ’s situation was periodically examined by the local social services and followed up by social enquiries , reports and psychosocial investigations , which did not recommend that the applicant be enrolled in a social protection programme . She always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she was registered with and by the ORG medical assistance services . At DATE she graduated from school in GPE and is currently enrolled in a school in PERSON . She is living in PERSON with her family . According to the information provided by the ORG . , ORG , ORG and ORG ( ORG ) the house owned by her grandmother has been restored and repaired .

The applicants alleged that on DATE their GPE house was destroyed by the villagers . They were forced to leave the village for DATE . In the aftermath of the events , their family was forced to live in CARDINAL damp room covered with cellophane , sleeping on the floor and without electricity . Consequently , they became ill . Moreover , they declared that they were discriminated against at school by their teachers .

The Government submitted that the applicants were living in GPE at the time of the events together with their parents . However , they are currently living in GPE ( ORG and PERSON ) or elsewhere ( PERSON and PERSON ) .

The applicant alleged that following the events of DATE he had suffered burns in the fire which destroyed his GPE house and had been forced to live outdoors for DATE . Moreover , in DATE he was chased and beaten by the police . Consequently , he became ill and was left with a disability which prevented him from supporting his family . He considers that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as party to the proceedings .

The Government submitted that the applicant continued to live in the village and was the recipient of social aid from the local ORG .

The applicant alleged that following the events of DATE his GPE house was burned down . Consequently , he was forced to live outdoors for DATE . As a result he developed lung problems and a physical disability which prevented him from supporting his family . Moreover , in DATE he was chased and beaten by the police . He declared that he was discriminated against at school by his teachers and colleagues . He considers that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as party to the proceedings .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with his parents at no . CARDINALA Hădăreni at the time of the events and that he continues to live in the village to the present .

The applicants alleged that in DATE their house was burned down and they were forced to leave the village . They were not able to take any clothes or food with them . As a result they are currently suffering from a number of physical and mental disabilities , including meningitis and serious eye problems , which they are unable to have treated due to lack of money . They declared that in DATE they left the village of GPE and they now live in GPE . Moreover , PERSON also declared that she was discriminated against by her school teachers .

The Government submitted that the applicants were all living at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events . According to ORG , in DATE the members of PERSON family were housed by CARDINAL of her sisters . Moreover the applicants were granted some aid by the authorities ( CARDINAL blankets ) and in DATE their house was rebuilt with Government funds . Apart from ORG , none of them now live in GPE .

The applicants declared that their house was burned down . They left the village and walked QUANTITY to the village of GPE , where their relatives live . They alleged that they continued to live with their relatives to date and their house in GPE had not been rebuilt .

The Government submitted that while the applicants had been living in GPE at the time of the events they are currently living in GPE .

The applicants alleged that for DATE they were unable to return to the village . They declared that they had suffered physical and mental traumas as a result of the events . Moreover , their family has had to sell the house they owned in the village for an unreasonably low price .

The ORG submitted that the applicants were living with their parents in GPE at the time of the events . Afterwards their family left the village and moved to the village of GPE .

The applicant alleged that his GPE house was burned down . Consequently , he was forced to raise his children in inhuman conditions . He declared that he was a civil party to the domestic proceedings of DATE , but did not appeal against that , judgment , on the ground that he was under arrest at the time and was not summoned . He also declared that he had been discriminated against and was unable to find a job . Consequently , he left GPE and is currently living in GPE on a rubbish dump .

The Government submitted that the applicant was in prison for murder at the time of the events and did not own a house . Currently he lives at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni . His GPE house was burned down and was subsequently rebuilt with Government funds .

The applicant alleged that in DATE her GPE house was burned down and she had to leave the village together with her CARDINAL children . They were forced to live with relatives in inappropriate conditions for DATE . Until their house was repaired the entire family lived in CARDINAL room with no electricity . In so far as her house was renovated with Government funds , the applicant declared that the Government only provided beams , CARDINAL door and CARDINAL windows . Moreover , the roof had to be improvised out of nylon and other materials that offered extremely poor insulation . She further declared that she could not send her children to school because of their living conditions . Consequently , her children left GPE and are currently living abroad on rubbish dumps . Moreover , she was a civil party to the domestic proceedings of DATE , but failed to appeal against the said judgment .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living in her GPE house at the time of the events . Currently she lives at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni . The house was rebuilt with Government funds . On DATE , according to the ORG , some more work needed to be done on the applicant ’s GPE house : repairs to all the ceilings in the house , the roof and the replacement of CARDINAL windows .

The applicants alleged that following the events of DATE they were discriminated against at school . Their GPE home was totally destroyed . For DATE they were forced to live in a field in a hut made of clay . Afterwards they moved into a house with broken windows and a missing roof and were forced to sleep on the floor for DATE . PERSON declared that she was forced to go to GPE to work in deplorable conditions in order to be able to support her family , while PERSON left for GPE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded the applicants jointly ROL CARDINAL in compensation for the partial destruction of their home . The applicants did not appeal against the said decision . They allege that their parents died of heart attacks as a result of the conditions they were living in . Moreover , PERSON herself has the same heart condition . The parental home has not been rebuilt to date . PERSON considered that ORG failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as a party to the proceedings .

DATE . The Government submitted that the applicants’ house had not been affected by the events . At the time they were all living at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni . In DATE and DATE PERSON and Petru - Doru Lăcătuş completed the first grade at school , while PERSON has never attended school .

The applicant alleged that his house has not been rebuilt to date , although it was burned down in DATE . He declares that he currently lives in a single room next to a stable and has been living there for DATE . As a result , he and his children have developed a number of medical conditions and he even had to undergo surgery as a result of the stable flies which invade his room regularly . He considers that the just satisfaction awarded by the ORG is also discriminatory , because the amount awarded to him for damages was very small .

The Government submitted that the applicant was in prison at the time of the events , following a conflict between GPE families which led to the killing of a third party . His house at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni was burned down during the events and was not rebuilt with Government funds . Currently he lives in GPE with his girlfriend . He has always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner he is registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services .

The applicant alleged that following the events of DATE his house was burned down and he was forced to sleep outdoors . As a result he suffered a number of health problems and continued to be discriminated against . He considers the present application to be his first CARDINAL before the ORG referring to the burning of his home , which has not been rebuilt to date . He declared that he was beaten up several times because he was of GPE origin but was too afraid to go to the police .

The Government submitted that the applicant was living at no . CARDINAL Hădăreni at the time of the events and his house was burned down . He is currently living at the same address and his house has been rebuilt with Government funds . He is a beneficiary of the medical insurance system and receives free or subsidised medicine .

In relation to all CARDINAL applications , all applicants consider the statements made by the Government in respect of some of them in order to prove they were not living in the village at the time of the events partial and misleading . In particular , this is because the Government relies mainly on the information provided in the applicants’ identity cards , which may not be entirely accurate , taking into consideration the lack of adequate identity and property papers available for GPE people .

The applicants also contest the ORG ’s allegations that some of their houses have not been affected by the conflict . They claim that all the houses have been affected .

On DATE , following the discontinuance of the criminal investigation against the police officers involved in the incident and the criminal conviction and sentencing of CARDINAL civilians , ORG delivered its judgment in the civil case . The court noted that the victims had claimed compensation for pecuniary damage resulting from the destruction of the houses and their contents ( furniture and so on ) , as well as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court further noted that , during the events of DATE , QUANTITY houses belonging to the GPE population in GPE had been totally or partially destroyed and CARDINAL GPE had been killed , a criminal court having found CARDINAL villagers guilty of these acts . Basing its decision on an expert report , the court awarded compensation for pecuniary damage for those houses which had not been rebuilt in the meantime , and maintenance allowances for the children of the GPE killed during the riots . On the basis of an expert report , the court awarded compensation for pecuniary damage in respect of the partial or total destruction of the houses of CARDINAL GPE . The court rejected the other ORG request for compensation for pecuniary damage in respect of the rebuilt houses , finding , on the basis of the same expert report , that their value was either the same as or higher than the original buildings . It further refused all applicants , including GPE and PERSON ( applications nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE ) , damages in respect of belongings and furniture , on the ground that they had not submitted documents to confirm the value of their assets .

DATE . The court finally rejected all the ORG claims in respect of non - pecuniary damage on the ground that they had not been substantiated , and that the crimes committed were not of a nature to produce such damage .

The court ordered the villagers convicted in the criminal trial to pay the damages awarded .

Relying on some procedural errors in ORG judgment , some of the applicants , with the exception in particular of GPE and PERSON ( applications nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE ) , lodged an appeal with ORG .

On DATE ORG found that a number of procedural errors had occurred during the public hearings on the merits before ORG : the hearings had been held in the absence of the accused and their lawyers ; CARDINAL of the applicants had not been summoned ; the public prosecutor had not been given leave to address the court and a number of expert reports ordered by the court had not been completed . ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered a new trial of the case .

In the second procedural cycle , ORG delivered its judgment in the civil case on CARDINAL DATE . Basing its decision on an expert report drafted in DATE and updated in DATE , the court ordered the civilians found guilty by the criminal court in respect of the destruction of the applicants’ houses to pay damages to some of the applicants for the destruction of their homes , including the following :

( a ) PERSON Raria ” Rostaş who was awarded EUR CARDINAL ;

( b ) Tiberiu PERSON who was awarded LAW ;

( c ) PERSON , PERSON , Petru - Doru Lăcătuş and PERSON ( as heirs of PERSON ) who were awarded jointly LAW .

The courts also ordered that the amounts be revised to take account of any devaluation in the national currency :

However , the court rejected all the applicants’ claims in respect of non - pecuniary damage , on the ground that they were not substantiated .

None of the above - mentioned applicants appealed against the ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

The civil proceedings ended with the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG , with the domestic courts also awarding the appellants non - pecuniary damages .

Following the conclusion of the domestic civil proceedings and of the proceedings before the ORG in respect of the CARDINAL original applicants , an enforcement file was opened with ORG for a number of applicants , including Tiberiu PERSON .

The applicant Tiberiu PERSON was informed by ORG that the judgment had become enforceable and the applicant needed to pay the enforcement fees .

The villagers contested the enforcement proceedings of the said judgments and asked for the temporary suspension of the enforcement proceedings until their action seeking to contest the enforcement of the domestic judgments was examined by the domestic courts .

By a final President ’s Order of DATE ORG allowed the villagers action , against , inter alia , Tiberiu PERSON , seeking the suspension of the enforcement of the judgments delivered by the domestic civil courts . The court grounded its judgment on the potential damage that might be suffered by the third parties in the event the domestic judgments were enforced without first waiting for the outcome of the contestation of the enforcement procedure . Consequently , the court temporarily suspended the enforcement proceedings while the proceedings contesting the enforcement were still pending before the domestic courts .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG allowed in part the third parties’ action contesting the enforcement of the domestic judgments awarding the individuals of GPE origin civil damages following the events of DATE , on the ground that the said damages had been incorporated into the sums awarded by ORG as just satisfaction or as part of the friendly settlement agreements accepted by the applicants following the NORP and Others judgments , cites above . The applicant Tiberiu PERSON was not party to the proceedings , which ended on DATE , and therefore the said judgment is not applicable to him .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to ORG stated that except for PERSON no other enforcement requests had been lodged by any of the creditors , Tiberiu PERSON in particular , in the enforcement file no . CARDINAL of DATE concerning the domestic judgments . Moreover , even in GPE Lăcătuş’ case he withdrew his request and was reimbursed the enforcement fee he had already paid .

ORG also stated that according to LAW . CARDINAL of DATE any of the creditors could have brought proceedings before domestic courts against any bailiff refusing to perform his or her duties concerning any act of enforcement . However , no such proceedings were lodged by any of the applicants .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE remains unenforced to date .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , the NORP government allocated ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the reconstruction of the houses destroyed by fire on DATE . The government decided , moreover , that this amount could also be used as financial assistance for the families affected in order to help them replace items which were strictly necessary and had been destroyed during the fire . However , CARDINAL houses were rebuilt with this money and none of the families received financial assistance .

By a government decision of CARDINAL DATE , a commission for the coordination of the reconstruction of the houses was created . Members of this commission included the mayor of PERSON and his deputy .

In a letter of DATE addressed to the government , the ORG indicated that an additional amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL was needed to rebuild the remaining QUANTITY houses .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , the government granted an additional sum of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL from funds which had been earmarked for natural disasters occurring DATE . CARDINAL other houses were rebuilt . However , some of the constructions suffered from building defects .

In a letter addressed to the prefect in DATE , the mayor of PERSON ( of which ORG is a part ) , PERSON , a member of the reconstruction commission , reported that , of the QUANTITY houses destroyed by the fire , QUANTITY had been rebuilt or almost rebuilt . Concerning the remaining QUANTITY houses , he reported that CARDINAL of them posed “ special problems ” : in particular , CARDINAL of the houses to be rebuilt was on land near the family of the non - Rom victim ( PERSON ) , who refused to have Gypsy families living close by . Another problem mentioned by the mayor was the house of the late mother of CARDINAL of the GPE who had died during the DATE events . It appeared that after the events the PERSON family had moved to the city of GPE , so the mayor had proposed that a house be built for them at a place of their choice .

On DATE the Government published in ORG . CARDINAL ORG for ORG for DATE ( the ORG ) which had previously been adopted . The ORG allocated CARDINAL new NORP lei ( PERSON ) for a number of areas , such as education ( including health and justice education ) , combating discrimination , prevention of domestic or community violence , professional training , employment , culture , development of infrastructure and so on .

On DATE the responsibility for the implementation of the ORG was transferred to ORG ( ORG ) which in turn contributed PERCENT of the total sum allocated for the DATE period . The ORG was charged with the supervision and appraisal of the implementation process .

The ORG , ORG and a local initiative group discussed the priority task that needed to be performed taking into account the available budget .

By DATE six houses affected by the events of DATE had been rebuilt inside .

According to the report of DATE concerning the prospects for the ORG community , ORG . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE had allocated in DATE ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the implementation of the ORG . The money was used to build QUANTITY of paved roads , to rehabilitate QUANTITY houses , to install a heating system for the school and to partially refurbish the school and the local activities centre .

DATE and DATE a number of awareness raising campaigns , workshops and training sessions were organised with the involvement of the local ORG , the authorities , the media and the police force . They focused mainly on combating discrimination , access to public health services and to education , inter - ethnic communication and professional qualification for professions in demand on the labour market .

By Government Decision No . CARDINAL of DATE , the Government allocated RON CARDINAL to the ORG in order for the ORG to be able to continue the implementation of the ORG . The ORG also contributed ORG CARDINAL during DATE .

The activities performed over the course of DATE included : the complete rehabilitation of CARDINAL houses ; the drafting of building plans for CARDINAL other houses , a medical centre and an industrial building for those who are economically active ; the signing of a contract for the building of a local school and the refurbishment of the local activities centre .

According to appraisal reports of CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the local kindergarten , the local activities centre and the local school have all been entirely rebuilt and all the building defects previously identified repaired .

Also , the local authorities have drafted a detailed action plan for DATE , which included as a first stage the encouragement of inter - ethnic and social dialogue , of community cooperation and of the development of economic activities in the region .

The second stage of the plan concerned the building of CARDINAL new homes , the rehabilitation of QUANTITY others , encouraging profitable activities in the region and the organisation of awareness - raising seminars in respect of themes such as post - ethnic - conflict regions .

The above - mentioned action plan for DATE extended the time frame of the initial ORG until DATE . The necessary budget was estimated at ORG CARDINAL with the Government and the ORG providing the financial support , while further information of the implementation of the action plan would be provided to ORG as per its latest decision of DATE .

The relevant legal provisions , including the relevant provisions of GPE , Code on Civil and Criminal Procedure , Law No . CARDINAL concerning enforcement officers , and the relevant case - law , are set forth in the judgments NORP and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ( dec . ) , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , ( dec . ) , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Civil Code provide that any person who has suffered damage can seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who has intentionally or negligently caused it .

“ Against the enforcemnet or any acts of enforcement , any person , including any person who has suffered a damage as a result of the enforcement can contest the enforcement proceedings . At the same time ... the enforcement proceedings can be contested ... when the enforcement officer refuses to carry out an act of enforcement as required by the applicable legal provisions . ”

Case - law of the domestic courts

The Government submitted a number of final judgments delivered DATE by both criminal and civil domestic courts belonging to various territorial jurisdictions . The civil proceedings brought by victims of various unlawful acts committed either by third parties or by state agents whose criminal liability had been established have been allowed and the victims have been awarded compensation . In all the cases the said victims have either joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties or have brought separate actions for compensation on the basis of general tort law , namely ORG of LAW .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE until DATE the applicant worked as a lorry driver . On DATE he was diagnosed with a back disease ( intervertebral disc degeneration ) and gave up his profession as a lorry driver .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG für ORG ) for a declaration that he was suffering from a work - related back disease , which would have entitled him to special pension benefits .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant ’s illness had not been work - related .

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative appeal which ORG , following further internal enquiries , rejected on DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG for an industrial injury pension on the grounds of occupational disease .

On DATE ORG set down the case for hearing on DATE .

On DATE it rejected the applicant ’s claim on the grounds that it had not been established that his disease was work - related .

On DATE the judgment was served on the applicant ’s counsel .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with the North - Rhine - Westphalia Social Court of Appeal without submitting the statement of grounds of appeal . Following CARDINAL reminders in DATE and DATE the court received the applicant ’s statement of grounds of appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing during which it decided to make further investigations .

DATE and DATE ORG consulted the applicant ’s disability files which it had received from ORG , the report of the defendant ’s technical supervisory services and various medical statements and certificates from the applicant ’s doctors .

On DATE ORG commissioned a report by an orthopaedic expert , PERSON , which was submitted on DATE and stated that the applicant ’s disease had not been caused by his work as a lorry driver .

On DATE the applicant applied under section CARDINAL of FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for a fresh medical report by another expert . He also put additional questions to the expert PERSON which were answered on DATE .

On DATE ORG commissioned a report by PERSON , an expert specialised in occupational medicine .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay a further advance to cover the costs of additional examinations which PERSON considered necessary . On DATE the applicant advanced those costs .

On DATE the applicant cancelled his appointment with PERSON scheduled DATE .

On DATE PERSON submitted a report finding that the applicant ’s disease had to be considered as being work - related .

On DATE ORG invited S. to lodge supplementary observations on the findings of ORG report , which he did on DATE .

Following the applicant ’s request for a supplementary report by PERSON in accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG , ORG ordered ORG on DATE to submit supplementary comments .

DATE and DATE the court reminded PERSON CARDINAL times to give his comments and set him a timelimit of DATE . On DATE PERSON submitted his comments .

On DATE S. was asked for his observations on PERSON supplementary comments . These he gave on DATE .

On DATE ORG set the appeal down for hearing on DATE . At the hearing the court ordered the taking of further evidence .

On DATE the defendant submitted an expert report prepared by its own technical supervisory service challenging PERSON conclusions .

On DATE ORG commissioned the preparation of a further report by a consultant surgeon , PERSON , who submitted his report on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested inter alia the preparation of a further expert report under section CARDINAL of FAC .

On DATE ORG commissioned ex officio a medical report by an orthopaedic expert , PERSON

In DATE and DATE ORG reminded PERSON of its request for a report . In reply , PERSON informed the court that the applicant had cancelled his appointment for examination scheduled on DATE and that it had had to be postponed to DATE . On DATE ORG received PERSON ’s report dated DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant requested the court CARDINAL times to extend the time - limits for the submission of his comments on PERSON ’s expert report .

On DATE the applicant submitted his comments and a private orthopaedic expert ’s report on which B. commented on DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that he intended to commission another private expert report .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing at which the applicant ’s counsel requested a DATE adjournment to allow him to comment on the future conduct of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant appointed a new legal representative who asked the court for access to the case files on DATE .

On DATE ORG postponed the hearing scheduled for DATE because the applicant ’s counsel had failed to return the case files .

On DATE , after a hearing , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . Considering that the relevant questions had been sufficiently examined by the experts PERSON , PERSON , and ORG , it did not find it necessary to seek a further expert opinion , as had been requested by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for leave to appeal on points of law with ORG which was rejected on DATE . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . On DATE ORG ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) refused to admit the applicant ’s complaint . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested ORG to revoke its decisions of DATE and DATE in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Social Code no . X ( PERSON ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On an unknown date ORG rejected his request .

Section CARDINAL of the Social Courts Act exempts applicants from the requirement to await the outcome of the preliminary administrative proceedings and allows them to lodge a court action directly with ORG if the administrative authorities fail without sufficient justification to decide the administrative appeal within a reasonable time , in general DATE .

Section CARDINAL of FAC provides that the insured person may request a further expert report . This request can only be rejected if granting it would delay the proceedings and if the court is satisfied that the request has been made in an attempt to delay the proceedings or was not submitted earlier due to gross negligence . The commissioning of the expert report may be made conditional on the applicant advancing the costs .

Section CARDINAL of the Social Code no . X provides that if social benefits are rejected on the basis of an unlawful administrative act , the competent authority shall , under certain circumstances , revoke that act with retrospective effect even after it has become final . In such cases the grant of social benefits is limited to a period of DATE the date of the application for supervisory review .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - Government to pay outstanding judgment debts;Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards

Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) and Mr PERSON ( the second applicant ) were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in FAC , LOC .

On DATE the Zhovti Vody City Court awarded the first applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL against ORG ( a ORG owned entity ; hereafter “ the Company ” ) in salary arrears . On DATE the second applicant was awarded CARDINAL against the ORG . Both judgments became final and were sent to FAC ( hereafter “ the Bailiffs ” ) for compulsory enforcement .

On DATE FAC informed the second applicant that the delay in the execution of numerous court judgments against the Company was due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of ORG - owned enterprises , which significantly limited the resources for refunding the ORG ’s salary arrears .

On DATE ORG , Transportation and Communications of ORG issued a letter , stating that improvement of the ORG ’s financial performance ( including that of its salary payments ) was a matter of concern for various ORG authorities . In particular , ORG was preparing the Company ’s development plan which was to be presented at the next ORG meeting .

On DATE the ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the ORG and issued an injunction barring any debt recovery . On DATE ORG approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the ORG ’s business .

The judgments given in the ORG favour remain unenforced .

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


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law)

NORP The applicant company , ORG , ORG , is a NORP limited liability company registered in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant company lodged a claim with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) against company PERSON , seeking the recovery of debts owed for legal services .

On DATE the above court allowed the claim . On DATE the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court of Appeal ( “ the ORG ” ) partly amended the above judgment . On DATE ORG upheld the latter decision . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

The hearing of CARDINAL DATE took place in the presence of company ORG representatives and in the absence of the applicant company ’s representative , who allegedly had not been informed thereof . The applicant company states that prior to the hearing of CARDINAL DATE company PERSON sent a letter to ORG asking it to consider the case “ with special attention ” .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG partly allowed the applicant company ’s claim and ordered company E. to pay the applicant company a sum comprised of debts owed , losses adjusted for inflation , a penalty and court fees .

On DATE ORG amended that judgment , having allowed the applicant company ’s claim in full .

On DATE ORG upheld the above decision .

On an unspecified date company PERSON lodged an appeal in cassation with ORG against the decision of DATE along with a request for an extension of procedural time - limits for lodging that appeal , stating that it had received a copy of the above decision only on DATE and could not , therefore , appeal against it on time .

On DATE ORG opened the cassation proceedings . On DATE it quashed the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that the ORG findings had been unfounded and erroneous , and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It stated , in particular , as follows :

“ Pursuant to the provisions of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE , ... ORG does not consider it necessary to remit the case for fresh consideration to the first - instance court , because that would contradict Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW of Ukraine , Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW governing the status of ORG and its tasks of ensuring the legitimacy in the administration of justice , and would entail quashing of the legitimate judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which would be contrary to LAW . Thus , the list of the consequences of the examination of an appeal in cassation against a decision of ORG , as envisaged by LAW , is not a procedural impediment to the upholding by ... ORG of the judgment ... of CARDINAL DATE ” .

The applicant company states that prior to the hearing of CARDINAL DATE it requested ORG to conduct audio - recording of that hearing and sought the withdrawal of some of its judges , but its requests were not examined .

NORP In DATE the applicant company lodged another claim with ORG against company PERSON for the recovery of debts owed for legal services .

On DATE the above court allowed the claim . On DATE ORG partly amended the above judgment . On DATE ORG upheld the latter decision . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

Following the reconsideration of the case , on DATE ORG delivered a judgment having allowed the claim in part . On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and rejected the claim as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG upheld the latter decision .

In DATE the applicant company lodged yet another claim with ORG against company PERSON for the recovery of debts owed for legal services .

On DATE the above court delivered a judgment . On DATE the Higher Commercial Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

On DATE the applicant company informed that , following the reconsideration of the case , its claim had eventually been allowed in part , the final decision having been given by ORG on DATE .

NORP The relevant domestic law is summarized in the cases of GPE and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , LAW DATE , DATE ) and ORG , PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , LAW CARDINAL , DATE ) .