No violation of P4-2;Violation of Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Mrs GPE , a NORP citizen living at ORG , has long been an environmentalist and a pacifist . At the material time she was a member of ORG ( ORG ) .

ORG At the invitation of Mr PERSON , the President of ORG , the applicant stayed on NORP territory from DATE to CARDINAL March CARDINAL , during the election campaign preceding the territorial assembly and parliamentary elections that were due to take place on DATE .

ORG As soon as she alighted from the aircraft , the airport and border police , acting on the orders of the High Commissioner of GPE in French GPE , requested her to show some discretion in any comments she made on NORP internal matters , failing which she risked being expelled .

ORG On DATE PERSON took part in a public meeting and on DATE joined about CARDINAL other people in the traditional march organised by the independence and anti - nuclear movements . This demonstration , which attracted fewer people than in DATE , took place without incident on the streets of PERSON , a town just outside GPE , where it had been banned by order of the High Commissioner because of the risk of " serious public disorder " .

During the demonstration the applicant denounced the continuation of nuclear testing and the NORP presence in the LOC . Her words were reported as follows in the newspapers :

" PERSON spoke in LANGUAGE and mentioned , in particular , the circumstances in which , on her arrival at FAC , she had been warned by the ‘ chief copper’ in charge of the airport and border police against taking part in a public demonstration , as doing so during an election campaign would amount to interference .

PERSON had replied that she would demonstrate if invited to do so , and she told the demonstrators gathered round her on DATE that when it came to interference , the NORP presence was an interference in the affairs of the NORP , and this interference was , in her view , manifested in the nuclear tests at GPE .

PERSON announced that , being of the view that the whole of the press in NORP GPE was opposed to the trend towards independence and supported the continuation of nuclear testing , the NORP ‘ PERSON had decided to donate MONEY to ORG to set up ‘ a newspaper that will tell the ORG . "

ORG On DATE , DATE , the High Commissioner made an order expelling the applicant and prohibiting her from re - entering the territory . The following reasons were given for the order :

" All foreign nationals have a duty to maintain a degree of neutrality towards any NORP territory in which they are staying .

Despite an oral warning about the duty of discretion , particularly during an election campaign , given to her on her arrival on DATE , PERSON stated , during a public demonstration in favour of the territory ’s independence and against nuclear testing , that GPE was interfering in NORP affairs .

These statements are an attack on NORP policy . "

ORG This order was served on the applicant on DATE when she was already on board the aircraft that was to take her to GPE .

ORG On DATE PERSON made CARDINAL applications to ORG seeking , firstly , to have execution of the decision stayed and , secondly , to have the decision quashed .

ORG The court dismissed the first application on DATE , but in a judgment of DATE it allowed the second application for the following reasons :

" Under the provisions of section CARDINAL of the Act ... of DATE ... , the representative of the ORG may ‘ as a public - order measure’ require any alien to leave NORP territory immediately . While the ORG ’s representative in the territory is vested , not only under these provisions ... , with a wide discretion to enable him to maintain order effectively , he must in all circumstances exercise the power thus conferred on him in a manner that respects freedom of movement and freedom of expression , which are secured not only by ORG law but in the first place by the LAW and the general principles of law which the Republic applies both to its own nationals and to aliens whose presence and attitude on NORP territory do not constitute a threat to public order . This entails an obligation to ensure that the proposed public - order measure scrupulously conforms to what is strictly needed in order to maintain or re - establish public order .

Firstly , the applicant ’s utterances ... were not in any way seditious and could not in themselves constitute a serious threat to public order . They were accordingly not such as to justify the impugned measure .

Secondly , it furthermore appears from the evidence that the measure was decided on just as the person concerned was about to leave the territory of her own accord . That being so , it could no longer be regarded as essential for maintaining order there .

It follows , without there being any need to rely on international or Community law , that the general principles of domestic law are sufficient to establish that the impugned decision was a misuse of authority and must therefore be quashed . "

ORG The Minister for Overseas Departments and Territories applied to the PERSON d’Etat on CARDINAL DATE to have ORG judgment set aside .

ORG On CARDINAL DATE the ORG d’Etat allowed the application on the following grounds :

" It appears from the evidence that during her visit to NORP PERSON made utterances violently hostile to GPE ’s defence policy and the integrity of NORP territory in the course of public demonstrations held during the campaign for the elections to ORG and to the local assembly . ’s actions constituted a threat to public order and in deciding on those grounds to require her to leave the territory , the High Commissioner did not commit a manifest error of assessment . That being so , the Minister for Overseas Departments and Territories rightly submitted that ORG , in quashing the order of DATE , wrongly based its decision on the lack of grounds warranting PERSON expulsion .

In the absence of provisions making it applicable to the territory of GPE and Dependencies , LAW DATE on the giving of reasons for administrative decisions and the improvement of relations between administrative authorities and the public does not apply there , and no other provision of a statute or of regulations requires reasons to be given for a public - order measure .

Although PERSON relies on the provisions of LAW concerning freedom of movement within the territory of the member GPE , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Treaty make implementation of such freedom of movement in the associated countries , which include GPE ’s overseas territories , subject to agreements to be concluded subsequently , which require the member States’ unanimous approval . In the absence of such agreements , this ground of appeal must in any event fail .

The privileges and immunities conferred on members of ORG by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW of DATE guarantee them free movement for the purpose of travelling to the ORG and protect them from any prosecution or detention during its sessions but can not prevent a public - order measure being taken such as the CARDINAL against FAC .

Lastly , the impugned measure did not infringe freedom of expression as laid down in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article DATE ) of LAW and came within the ambit of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of Protocol No . CARDINAL ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) to the LAW , which allows restrictions on freedom of movement that are based on the requirements of national security , public safety or the maintenance of ordre public . "

ORG After leaving GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , PERSON travelled to GPE at the invitation of local elected representatives , including the President of ORG . On DATE , at TIME , she arrived at FAC . After she had gone with the other passengers through immigration control , where the airport and border police stamped her passport , a police officer stopped her and took her into an airport office , where she was held until her departure .

ORG Some DATE activists known as loyalists had been warned that the applicant was coming and were waiting for her in order to express their hostility to her presence in the territory . They made it known that so long as the ORG was on NORP soil they would not leave unless removed by force .

ORG Given the risk of confrontation and after unsuccessful attempts at conciliation , the High Commissioner issued an order excluding PERSON from the territory of GPE . It contained the following reasons :

" Having regard to the expulsion and exclusion order of DATE issued by the High Commissioner in NORP GPE in respect of PERSON ... ;

Being of the view that the presence of FAC , of NORP nationality ( FRG ) , on the territory of GPE and Dependencies , in particular during an election campaign , is causing and is likely to cause public disorder ... "

A police superintendent served this order on her whilst she was still within the airport perimeter , at TIME

At TIME the applicant was put on an aircraft bound for GPE , her passport having again been duly stamped .

ORG On DATE PERSON applied to ORG to have the order excluding her from GPE quashed .

ORG In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE which upheld the submissions of the Government Commissioner ( commissaire du gouvernement ) , the court quashed the impugned decision on the ground that no reasons had been given for it . It held :

" Under LAW of DATE on the giving of reasons for administrative decisions , ‘ ... reasons must be given for decisions which ... restrict the exercise of public freedoms or generally constitute public - order measures’ .

Under section CARDINAL of the same LAW , ‘ the statement of reasons required by this LAW must be in writing and set out the considerations of law and fact on which the decision is based’ .

Although the impugned order referred to the order of CARDINAL March DATE issued by the High Commissioner in NORP GPE expelling PERSON and excluding her from that territory , the High Commissioner in GPE and Dependencies did not state that he was adopting the terms of that order , whose text is neither incorporated in nor appended to his decision . That recital accordingly could not take the place of the statement of reasons required by the LAW .

Moreover , by merely stating ‘ the presence of FAC , of NORP nationality ( FRG ) , on the territory of GPE and Dependencies , in particular during an election campaign , is causing and is likely to cause public disorder’ without specifying the facts on which this public - order measure was based , the High Commissioner in GPE and Dependencies did not satisfy the requirements of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW . That being so and without there being any need to consider the other grounds put forward in her application , PERSON is entitled to have that order quashed . "

ORG On DATE the Minister for Overseas Departments and Territories appealed to the ORG d’Etat .

ORG In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d’Etat set aside the judgment of the court below . After noting that the aforementioned LAW DATE did not apply to the territory of GPE and Dependencies , it gave the following reasons for its decision :

" Under LAW of DATE on the naturalisation and residence of aliens in GPE , which is still in force in the overseas territories and applies in the territory of GPE and Dependencies , ‘ the Minister of the ORG may , as a public - order measure , require any alien travelling or resident in GPE to leave NORP territory immediately and have him escorted to the frontier’ ... Regard being had both to PERSON actions during DATE and to the unrest caused by the announcement of her arrival in the territory , the High Commissioner , in considering that PERSON presence would constitute a threat to public order and in ordering her exclusion from the territory of GPE on that account , did not commit any manifest error of assessment .

The privileges and immunities conferred on members of ORG by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW of DATE guarantee them freedom of movement for the purpose of travelling to the ORG and protect them from any prosecution or detention during its sessions but can not prevent a public - order measure being taken such as the CARDINAL against FAC .

ORG On DATE the High Commissioner of the Republic , of his motion , revoked the order of CARDINAL March CARDINAL on the ground that there was no longer " any reason , having regard to present circumstances , to oppose PERSON entering the territory of GPE " .

ORG GPE ’s overseas territories ( " the OTs " ) are an integral part of the territory of the Republic .

ORG However , by virtue of the " specificity of legislation " principle ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW ) , an enactment applies in the OTs only if such application is expressly provided for or if the enactment has been promulgated there .

ORG When depositing the instruments of ratification of the Convention and of LAW CARDINAL ( PCARDINAL ) on CARDINAL DATE , GPE declared that these would apply to " the whole territory of the Republic , having due regard , where the overseas territories are concerned , to local requirements , as mentioned in DATE ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention " .

The Aliens ( Conditions of Entry and Residence ) Ordinance of DATE in force in metropolitan GPE was not promulgated in the OTs and accordingly does not apply in them .

The applicable provisions are contained in the Aliens ( ORG and Residence ) Act of DATE , section CARDINAL of which provides in its first subsection :

" The Minister of the ORG may , as a public - order measure , require any alien travelling or resident in GPE to leave NORP territory immediately and have him escorted to the frontier . "

This Act was made applicable to the GPE by an LAW DATE . An Act of DATE vests the powers of the Minister of the ORG in the High Commissioner of the Republic in the OTs .

ORG At the material time the PERSON d’Etat ’s power of review in matters of expulsion or exclusion from NORP territory was limited to ascertaining whether there had been any manifest error of assessment ( see , for example , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON DATE , p. CARDINAL , and , in relation to an expulsion from GPE , the NORP - PERSON judgment of DATE , PERSON DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

With more particular reference to the political activities of aliens , the PERSON d’Etat held in the PERSON judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON DATE , p. CARDINAL ) that political activity did not in itself justify in law the expulsion of an alien whose presence on NORP territory did not constitute a threat to public order .

ORG At the material time LAW establishing ORG ( " LAW " ) provided :

" CARDINAL . This Treaty shall apply to GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , FAC of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE and GPE .

With regard to GPE and the NORP overseas departments , the general and particular provisions of this LAW relating to :

- the free movement of goods ;

- agriculture , save for LAW ) ;

- the liberalization of services ;

- the rules on competition ;

- the protective measures provided for in Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ;

- the institutions ,

shall apply as soon as this LAW enters into force .

The conditions under which the other provisions of this LAW are to apply shall be determined , within DATE of the entry into force of this LAW , by decisions of the ORG , acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission .

The institutions of the ORG will , within the framework of the procedures provided for in this LAW , in particular LAW , take care that the economic and social development of these areas is made possible .

The special arrangements for association set out in Part CARDINAL of this Treaty shall apply to the overseas countries and territories listed in GPE to LAW .

This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with GPE and GPE which are not included in the aforementioned list . "

ORG The OTs , including NORP GPE and GPE , are among the territories listed in GPE to LAW . Their special arrangements for association are laid down in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL bis of the treaty .

ORG With reference to workers’ freedom of movement , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide :

" CARDINAL . Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community by the end of the transitional period at the latest .

Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member GPE as regards employment , remuneration and other conditions of work and employment .

It shall entail the right , subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy , public security or public health :

( a ) to accept offers of employment actually made ;

( b ) to move freely within the territory of Member GPE for this purpose ;

( c ) to stay in a Member ORG for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that ORG laid down by law , regulation or administrative action ;

( d ) to remain in the territory of a Member ORG after having been employed in that ORG , subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission .

" Subject to the provisions relating to public health , public security or public policy , freedom of movement within Member GPE for workers from the [ OTs ] , and within the [ OTs ] for workers from Member GPE , shall be governed by agreements to be concluded subsequently with the unanimous approval of Member GPE . "

ORG The details of and procedure for the association of the overseas countries and territories with the ORG are set out in an implementing convention of DATE , which was renewed on DATE . The arrangements are designed to further the economic and social development of the territories concerned but do not include freedom of movement .

ORG The LAW on the privileges and immunities of ORG , signed on DATE , contains a chapter III on members of ORG which provides :

" No administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of members of ORG travelling to or from the place of meeting of ORG .

Members of ORG shall , in respect of customs and exchange control , be accorded :

( a ) by their own Government , the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions ;

( b ) by the ORG of other Member GPE , the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign Governments on temporary official missions . "

" Members of ORG shall not be subject to any form of inquiry , detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties . "

" During the sessions of ORG , its members shall enjoy :

( a ) in the territory of their own ORG , the immunities accorded to members of their ORG ;

( b ) in the territory of any other Member ORG , immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings .

Immunity shall likewise apply to members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of ORG .

Immunity can not be claimed when a member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent ORG from exercising its right to waive the immunity of CARDINAL of its members . "


Violation of Art. 6;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-Pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , the GPE region .

In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( Краснолуцький міський суд PERSON області ) against his employer , the ORG “ PERSON ” ( “ the ORG , ” ORG “ PERSON ” ) , for salary arrears and other payments . At the material time the ORG owned PERCENT of the ORG 's shares . The ORG was therefore subject to the PERSON of DATE “ on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property . ”

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant LAW . This judgment was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE ORG ( ORG виконавчої служби ORG міського управління юстиції ) initiated the enforcement proceedings in relation to this judgment .

The judgment was enforced on DATE .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

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

In DATE the police started to investigate a scheme to influence the outcome of matches of the NORP national football league by means of bribery . The public was interested in this investigation on account of the popularity of the sport in the country , where matches of the national league are followed closely . The press reported on the investigation regularly . As part of the investigation , several telephones were tapped .

On DATE a judge at ORG ( městský soud ) ordered that the telephone of a certain GPE , who was president of a football club , be tapped from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . That club was at that time the last but CARDINAL in the national league rankings and thus faced demotion to a lower division for DATE . GPE was suspected of bribing referees to influence the outcome of matches played by his team .

On DATE , while GPE ’s telephone was tapped , the police intercepted a call with the applicant , a football referee at that time . The conversation included the following exchange :

“ GPE : “ We are fucked , really , it could n’t be worse , dude . We have CARDINAL last chance to reverse it somehow . We will see , the guys on the field must of course , because we play like shit . I would like to ask you a favour , should it turn out , I do not know , you were here DATE , were n’t you ?

Applicant : “ Yes , I was there , I was there .

GPE : “ CARDINAL:CARDINAL with PERSON in TIME , dude , I ’ll take that . That would be great . ”

Applicant : “ Sure . ”

GPE “ Keep your favour and I will of course arrange some stuff with NORP , I mean , what it takes to keep the favour , and there will be CARDINAL dimes in it for you .

Applicant : “ Sure , see you on DATE ! ”

GPE : “ PERSON bye .

Applicant : “ Bye ! ”

In NORP :

“ GPE : “ PERSON v prdeli , fakt PERSON to horší nemůže bejt vole , máme poslední šanci ORG to nějak zvrátit , uvidíme . PERSON samozřejmě kluci na hřišti hlavně , protože hrajeme hovno . PERSON tě poprosit , kdyby to dopadlo , jako nevím , ty jsi tu CARDINAL nějak před rokem asi viď ?

Applicant : “ No byl jsem tam , byl jsem tam .

GPE : “ Se Zlínem jedna nula v poslední minutě , ty vole , ORG to beru , to by bylo super . ”

Applicant : “ PERSON . ”

GPE : “ Zachovej přízeň a já samozřejmě s LOC domluvím některý věci , jako co je potřeba , ať se zachová přízeň a třicetník je tam pro tebe no ”

Applicant : “ PERSON , uvidíme se v neděli . ”

GPE : „ Dobrý , ahoj ! “

Applicant : „ Ahoj ! “

The match concerned was won by GPE ’s team CARDINAL .

On DATE the police charged the applicant with accepting a bribe .

On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) found the applicant guilty as charged . It found it established that the applicant had accepted payment of CARDINAL NORP korunas ( CZK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for being favourable to GPE ’s team and thus influencing the results of the match . The court sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment suspended for DATE . The recording of the telephone conversation , which was played at the hearing , was the main evidence against the applicant . Other testimonies were heard and other evidence , which was mostly suggested by the applicant , adduced . The court did not admit other additional evidence relating to the quality of the telephone signal at the applicant ’s home , considering it unnecessary .

The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the tapping had been illegal and thus could not be used as evidence , that “ QUANTITY had been meant literally and thus only the equivalent of MONEY had been at stake , that by “ jasně ” in the conversation he had not meant “ sure ” but “ clearly ” as in “ I ca n’t hear you clearly ” and that none of that had constituted a crime .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , finding that the telephone tapping had been legal and endorsing the conclusions of ORG in other respects .

The applicant appealed on points of law , reiterating his arguments . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed his appeal as manifestly ill - founded .

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) in which he complained of violations of his right to a fair trial and right to respect for his private life . He complained , in particular , that the telephone tapping had been illegal and the recording should not have been admitted as evidence , that the courts’ judgments had been insufficiently reasoned that their findings had been wrong , that the act he had committed had not constituted a criminal offence and that the courts had refused to admit evidence suggested by him .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill - founded . Regarding his claim as to the illegality of the telephone tapping , it referred to its earlier decision in the case of another accused in the bribery scheme . In that case the court found that the telephone tapping had been legal , because , inter alia , the investigation had been conducted in the context of criminal proceedings in respect of an intentional crime which fell to be prosecuted under an international treaty , namely , ORG .

The judge at ORG who had ordered the tapping , who had not subsequently been in any way involved in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant , testified as a witness at the trial of another accused in the bribery scheme , where he made a negative statement about the character of the accused .

Article CARDINAL regulated telephone tapping :

( CARDINAL ) In the context of criminal proceedings for a particularly serious intentional crime or any other intentional crime that falls to be prosecuted under an international treaty , the presiding judge , and at the pre - trial stage a judge on a proposal of a prosecutor , may order the interception and recording of telecommunications traffic , if it can be reasonably assumed that it will reveal facts relevant to the criminal proceedings . The interception and recording of telecommunications traffic between the lawyer and the accused is impermissible . If the police , while intercepting and recording telecommunications traffic , discover that the accused is communicating with his lawyer , they must stop the interception immediately , destroy the recording and not use the information learned in this context in any way .

( CARDINAL ) A warrant for the interception and recording of telecommunications traffic shall be issued in writing and shall be reasoned . It must also state the period during which the interception and recording will be carried out , which may not be longer than DATE . A judge may extend this period for DATE . The judge shall send a copy of the warrant to a prosecutor without delay . The police shall undertake the interception and recording of telecommunications traffic for all the prosecuting authorities .

( CARDINAL ) If a recording of telecommunications traffic is to be used as evidence , it is necessary to accompany it with a report , giving the place , time , manner and contents of the recording , as well as the person making the recording . ... the recording can be used as evidence in a criminal case other than the CARDINAL for which the telecommunications traffic was intercepted and recorded only if that case also concerns a criminal offence of the nature specified in paragraph CARDINAL ...

( CARDINAL ) If the interception and recording has not revealed any facts relevant to the criminal proceedings , the recording must be destroyed in the prescribed manner .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);No violation of Art. 11

The applicant was a member of ( and a spokeswoman for ) a group of aliens without residence permits who in DATE decided to take collective action to draw attention to the difficulties they were having in obtaining a review of their immigration status in GPE .

Their campaign , which received widespread coverage in the press , culminated with the occupation of PERSON ORG in GPE on DATE by a group of CARDINAL illegal immigrants , most of whom were of NORP origin . CARDINAL men within the group decided to go on hunger strike . The applicant 's daughter joined her mother as CARDINAL of the occupiers of the church . The movement , known as the “ PERSON sans papiers ” movement , was supported by several human - rights organisations , some of whose activists decided to sleep on the LOC in a show of solidarity with their predicament .

On DATE the GPE Commissioner of Police signed an order for the total evacuation of the LOC . It was made on the grounds that the occupation of the LOC was unrelated to religious worship , there had been a marked deterioration in the already unsatisfactory sanitary conditions , padlocks had been placed on the church exits and there were serious sanitary , health , peace , security and public - order risks .

More specifically , the order read as follows :

“ The director of ORG ( ORG ) was given responsibility on DATE for ensuring day to day care of the hunger strikers and the parish priest has been reminded of the health hazards to which the occupants were exposed by the precarious living conditions as also of the need to allow unrestricted access to the emergency services .

ORG ) organisation , which offers continuous medical assistance in the church , has made public alarming information on the very serious consequences of this hunger strike for the health of those concerned at the expiration of the medically critical period of DATE .

On the basis of the provisions of LAW , the CARDINAL hunger strikers were evacuated on DATE , solely in order for the men to be given appropriate medical check - ups in hospitals in GPE .

The men returned to the aforementioned church of their own accord and immediately declared their intention to pursue their action . Since DATE there has been a marked deterioration in the already unsatisfactory sanitary conditions , the available sanitary equipment being totally inadequate for the long - term use of the premises as a collective shelter .

The number of people present on the LOC has grown considerably during DATE , and this has led to incidents in the immediate vicinity and notably on the public highway .

Such incidents create a risk of behaviour that may result in public order disturbances .

The various movements concerned have erected barriers on the public highway , across FAC at the junctions with FAC and FAC . The barriers obstruct the highway , hindering the passage of ordinary traffic and of emergency vehicles .

The church doors and various exits are kept closed , and in some cases padlocked , to enable a filter system to be operated at the only remaining entrance that is permanently accessible , and a barricade formed of barriers chained together has even been placed between the enclosure railings and the north entrance to the church chancel . These installations constitute a major hazard should an emergency evacuation of the persons present inside the building become necessary .

These activities and movements are totally unrelated to religious worship , which is the exclusive use to which this public building may be put under the law of DATE .

It follows from the matters noted above that the current situation represents a serious sanitary , health , peace , public - security and public - order risk ... ”

NORP The following morning the police carried out the evacuation . The police officers arrived at the scene at TIME and set up a checkpoint at the church exit to verify , on the basis of LAW , subparagraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW CARDINAL , subparagraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of the Ordinance of DATE , whether the aliens evacuated from the church had documentation authorising them to stay and circulate in the territory . The police entered the church at TIME

All the occupants of the church were stopped and questioned . Whites were immediately released while the police assembled all the dark - skinned occupants , apart from those on hunger strike , and sent them by coach to an aliens ' detention centre at FAC . Orders were made for the detention and deportation of almost all of those concerned . CARDINAL were subsequently released by the courts on account of certain irregularities on the part of the police , which even extended to making false reports regarding the stopping and questioning procedure .

At TIME a police officer asked the applicant as she was leaving the church for documentary evidence that she had leave to stay in GPE , but she was unable to produce any . The applicant had attended the GPE Police Commissioner 's Office on DATE but on DATE had been refused leave to remain in GPE on the ground that she did not satisfy any of the conditions laid down by the Ordinance of DATE for the issue of a residence permit and that there were no personal or family reasons justifying her being granted leave to remain on humanitarian grounds . She had been invited to leave NORP territory within DATE after receipt of notification of the Commissioner of ORG 's decision .

At TIME the applicant was taken into custody and informed of her rights pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The measure was deemed to have taken effect at TIME , when she was stopped . The applicant refused to speak throughout her period in custody . At TIME on DATE the Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor at ORG instructed the police officers to bring the applicant before him , with the case file as it stood .

At TIME on DATE the applicant appeared before ORG under the “ immediate summary trial ” procedure . She was accused of having “ entered and stayed in GPE without being in possession of the documents or visas required by the rules ” and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , suspended . ORG held :

“ The occupation of a place of worship ... over a period of DATE , ... in order to contest their immigration status and create a movement in their favour , in itself constitutes an emergency justifying the administrative authority 's decision to expel them .

The presence in GPE ORG of CARDINAL people for a period of DATE claiming , through public statements made by individuals or through spokespersons representing them , status as , in their own words , aliens without residence permits or papers , constituted grounds for suspecting that those concerned had committed offences under the immigration rules such that the verification of their identity pursuant to LAW was justified .

However , since a large number of people were stopped at the same time and refused to disclose their identities , the police were not able to carry out an immediate identity check . The fact that the identity check was not carried out when they were first stopped , but within what , given the practical contingencies inherent in an operation of that size , was a reasonable period thereafter , does not render the proceedings defective .

Regard being had to the large number of persons stopped and the circumstances in which the operation was conducted , the defendant was notified of her rights within a reasonable time ... ”

On DATE ORG , on appeal by the applicant , upheld the sentence and added an order excluding her from NORP territory for DATE . In addition , it held in its judgment :

“ The occupation of a place of worship by CARDINAL individuals over DATE , in order to create a movement in their favour and to contest their immigration status , constitutes an emergency that justified the administrative authority making an expulsion order without making a prior application to the courts .

The occupiers of the LOC continued their hunger strike for DATE and the living conditions of those concerned continued to deteriorate .

The scale of the demonstrations over DATE , with barriers being used to obstruct the highway and hinder the passage of vehicles , constituted a risk for security , sanitation , the health of the hunger strikers and public order that justified urgent measures being taken to put an end to the disturbances . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law on the following grounds :

“ In the proceedings before the courts below , in which ORG , a NORP national , was accused of illegally entering and staying in GPE , the accused duly challenged the lawfulness of the order issued by the commissioner of police , without a prior court order , for the evacuation of the church occupied by the accused and several other persons , which evacuation was followed by police identity checks that revealed that the demonstrators were illegal immigrants .

In these circumstances , the reasons which the courts below relied on DATE unnecessarily – in dismissing her objection can not serve as a basis for complaint by the appellant , since , even if she had proved that the administrative act referred to above was unlawful , it would have had no bearing on the outcome of the criminal proceedings . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ The criminal courts shall have jurisdiction to interpret general or individual administrative decisions or regulations and to determine their lawfulness if the outcome of criminal proceedings pending before them depends on their so doing . ”

Article CARDINAL , subparagraph CARDINAL , of LAW reads as follows :

“ Senior police officers and ordinary police officers acting on the orders of senior police officers who are accountable for their actions , ... may invite any person to prove his or her identity by any means if there are grounds for suspecting that he or she :

( i ) has committed or attempted to commit an offence ;

( ii ) is preparing to commit a serious crime ( crime ) or other major offence ( délit ) , may be able to provide information that will assist in the investigation of a serious crime or other major offence , or is wanted by a judicial authority . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW of the Territorial Authorities reads as follows :

“ In GPE the Commissioner of Police shall have the powers and prerogatives conferred on him by the Ordinance of the Consuls of PERSON , DATE , determining the functions of the GPE Commissioner of Police , by the amendments that have been made thereto , and by Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. DATE .

However , in the circumstances set out in this LAW and LAW , the Mayor of GPE shall be responsible for ensuring that public highways in the city are kept clean and tidy , for maintaining order at fairs and markets and , subject to the opinion of the Commissioner of Police , for all grants of parking permits to small traders and of permits or licences for erecting stalls on the public highway .

Further , in the circumstances set out in Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , sub - paragraph QUANTITY , and Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of this LAW , the Mayor shall be responsible for ensuring the preservation of ORG property incorporated into the public property of GPE . For the purposes of the application of these provisions , the power of substitution conferred on the ORG in the département shall be exercised , in GPE , by the Commissioner of Police . ”

The relevant provisions of the Ordinance of the Consuls of CARDINAL GPE , DATE , which determines the functions of the Commissioner of Police of GPE , read as follows :

Section I – General provisions

“ CARDINAL . NORP The Commissioner of Police shall perform the functions set out hereafter , under the immediate authority of the ministers . He shall communicate directly with them about the matters for which their departments have responsibility .

NORP The Commissioner of Police may republish the administrative rules and regulations and issue orders to ensure that they are complied with . ”

Section III – Maintaining law and order in the city

NORP The Commissioner of Police shall have responsibility for all matters concerning minor highways , save that an appeal will lie against his or her decisions to the Minister of the Interior .

The Commissioner of Police shall secure liberty and security on the public highway and to that end shall have responsibility for preventing criminal damage to the public highway , for lighting , for ensuring that residents comply with their obligation to keep the area in front of their houses swept , and for arranging for squares and the perimeters of public gardens and buildings to be swept at the city 's expense ... ”

The relevant provisions of the Law of DATE on ORG provides :

“ CARDINAL . Anyone may attend public meetings .

Public meetings may be held without prior permission subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in the following Articles ...

Meetings may not be held on the public highway ; ...

Every meeting shall have a board of CARDINAL people . The board shall be responsible for maintaining order , preventing any breach of the law , ensuring that the meeting retains the character ascribed to it in the declaration , prohibiting any speech that is contrary to public order or morals or containing any incitement to commit an act constituting a serious crime ( crime ) or other major offence ( délit ) ...

NORP ... the right to terminate a meeting shall not be exercised by the authority 's representative unless he or she is called upon to do so by the board or unless clashes or patently illegal acts occur .

Any breach of the provisions of this PERSON shall be punishable by the penalties laid down for summary offences , without prejudice to any proceedings that may be instituted in respect of any serious crime or other major offence that may have been committed at the meetings . ”

Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the PERSON of DATE on ORG and ORG read as follows :

“ Assemblies for the purposes of worship in premises belonging to or placed at the disposal of a religious association shall be open to the public . They shall be exempted from the requirements of section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE , but shall remain under the supervision of the authorities in the interests of public order . Such assemblies may not take place until a declaration has been made , in the form required by LAW , identifying the LOC where they will be held ... ”

“ It is prohibited to hold a public meeting in LOC habitually used as a place of worship . ”

“ Anyone who prevents , delays or interrupts religious ceremonies by causing disturbances or disorder in the LOC used for such ceremonies shall be liable to the same penalties .

“ A minister of religion guilty of making a speech or posting or distributing notices publicly in a place of worship that contain direct incitement to resist compliance with the law or the lawful acts of public authorities or are aimed at stirring up or rousing CARDINAL group of citizens against the others shall be liable to DATE imprisonment , without prejudice to the penalties for complicity if the incitement is followed by sedition , revolt or civil war . ”


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

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

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

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

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


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

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

At TIME on DATE Mr ORG was found in a cultivated forest near a railway station , with CARDINAL gunshot wounds , from which he died DATE in a hospital TIME .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered Mr ORG In the course of a subsequent search of the applicant ’s house MONEY ( ORG ) were seized .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held in custody in ORG ( GPE ) . According to the applicant , the conditions in which he was held were inhuman and degrading . Furthermore , the police allegedly tortured him to obtain a confession .

The applicant consistently denied any involvement in the murder . He acknowledged that on DATE his classmate PERSON PERSON had driven him to the site of the incident , as he had wanted to see the place , where he had planned a business meeting for CARDINAL DATE with a certain PERSON , whose other details he did not know . The following day PERSON ORG again accompanied the applicant to the same place along with his father in their car and waited for him nearby . The applicant met PERSON on the railroad bridge as agreed . PERSON took the applicant ’s jacket . When the applicant saw CARDINAL men fire at a passer - by , he became scared and ran through the forest to Mr PERSON ’s car and they drove away . During the trip , the applicant threw away his boots and his gloves , as he had realised that other passers - by could have seen him and implicated him in the incident .

On DATE Mr ORG , the applicant ’s acquaintance , who was a shareholder and a driver in a company managed by PERSON , the victim ’s widow , was questioned by the police concerning the murder . As he was questioned as a witness , PERSON ORG was warned of his obligation to provide all the information known to him on pain of criminal sanctions and was not offered the option to consult with a lawyer . He confessed to having hired the applicant to kill Mr ORG and to having paid him ORG CARDINAL in advance and ORG CARDINAL post factum . He also testified that on the eve of the murder the applicant had shown him the gun he had acquired to kill Mr O.M. Soon afterwards PERSON ORG was indicted for incitement to murder . Following his indictment and purportedly a consultation with a lawyer , he retracted his confession and subsequently consistently denied his or the applicant ’s involvement in the events throughout the course of the proceedings .

On DATE Mr ORG complained to the prosecutor ’s office that the police officers who had questioned him had put him under severe psychological pressure , including threats to accuse him of a capital offence , to have him beaten and raped and to harm his wife and daughter unless he identified the applicant as the killer of PERSON O.M. On an unspecified date PERSON ORG also complained that CARDINAL unknown individuals had attacked him on the porch of his house and told him to confess to his involvement in the murder if he wanted to spare his family serious trouble . The parties did not provide any information concerning the authorities’ reaction to these complaints .

On an unspecified date the case against the applicant and PERSON ORG was referred for trial to ORG . According to the prosecution , the applicant was guilty of murder for profit , unlawful possession of firearms and unlawful transactions in foreign currency . According to the prosecution ’s version of events , PERSON , grossly upset about her husband ’s inappropriate behaviour towards her , had requested PERSON ORG to find somebody to talk to him , threaten and , if necessary , beat him . She allowed him to take some money from CARDINAL karbovantsi which she had earlier given him for safekeeping , to hire a suitable person . Mr ORG , who was on bad personal terms with PERSON ORG and was afraid to lose his job in his wife ’s company , decided to use the money to have PERSON ORG killed . On an unknown date Mr ORG gave the applicant ORG CARDINAL for preparation of the murder , including the purchase of a gun , and informed him of the usual time and route by which Mr ORG walked to work . On an unknown date the applicant acquired from an unknown source a CARDINAL foreign gun of an unknown make , and on CARDINAL DATE he fired several shots into the victim . On DATE Mr PERSON gave the applicant another USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL in payment for the murder .

On DATE ORG referred the case for additional investigation , having found that the facts of the case were insufficiently established and the evidence of the defendants’ involvement in the incriminated offences was insufficient . On an unspecified date the case was referred back to the court for trial .

On DATE ORG acquitted the defendants , having found , in particular , that the prosecution had failed to account for inconsistencies between the available sources of evidence and to secure sufficient proof of the GPE guilt . In particular , a number of facts , such as PERSON ORG ’s alleged involvement in the crimes and the sums purportedly received by the applicant to commit the murder were lacking in any evidentiary basis save for PERSON ORG ’s initial confessions , which he had subsequently retracted as given under duress . Accordingly , the court found the evidence unreliable and , as no other evidence was available , interpreted all the doubts in favour of the defence .

The applicant was released from custody on DATE of his acquittal and soon afterwards left the country and settled in GPE , allegedly fearing reprisals on the part of the police . On an unspecified date PERSON ORG disappeared .

On DATE ORG placed the applicant and PERSON ORG on the wanted list . According to the applicant , he was unaware of this fact and was never in hiding . He settled , worked , married , had a child and obtained a driver ’s licence in his own name .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal in cassation by the prosecution and remitted the case for fresh consideration to ORG .

In DATE , when the applicant applied to the NORP authorities to renew his expired passport , he was arrested and detained in GPE pending trial .

As PERSON ORG was not found , on DATE ORG ( the former ORG ) solicited the applicant ’s opinion about holding a trial in his absence , to which the applicant , represented by a lawyer , agreed . In the course of the trial , the prosecution requested the court to read out depositions by PERSON ORG , to which the defence did not object . The court granted the request by the prosecution .

On DATE ORG accepted the prosecution ’s version of events as filed in DATE . It convicted the applicant of murder for profit and unlawful possession of firearms and acquitted him of unlawful transactions in foreign currency , which was by then no longer a criminal offence .

NORP The court found that the applicant ’s guilt of having committed the murder as charged was apparent , in particular , on the strength of the following evidence :

- PERSON testimony that in DATE she had requested PERSON ORG to find a person to threaten her husband and had authorised him to pay that person out of MONEY karbovantsi given to him for safekeeping . After her husband had been murdered , Mr ORG had advised her to be quiet about the matter ;

- PERSON ( the applicant ’s mother ’s ) testimony that on CARDINAL DATE her son had bought gloves , tennis shoes and a sports bag . On CARDINAL DATE her son had told her that he was going to play tennis in the TIME , but had subsequently changed his plans and left the town for DATE . The CARDINAL ORG which were seized from the house belonged to the entire family and were long - term savings ;

- PERSON and PERSON testimony that on CARDINAL DATE , at TIME , they had heard several gunshots and then discovered PERSON ORG wounded near the railroad bridge , and that they had not seen any suspicious men around ;

- Mr PERSON ’s testimony that on CARDINAL DATE , at TIME , he had heard CARDINAL gunshots and TIME had seen a man running across the bridge . He was unable , however , to provide a description of the man and refused to speculate whether it could have been the applicant ;

- Mr PERSON ’s testimony that on CARDINAL DATE he had driven the applicant to a market in his father ’s car , where the applicant had bought a bag , a jacket , tennis shoes and gloves . Subsequently they had gone on to the neighbourhood where the murder would take place DATE , as the applicant had business there . The applicant went into the forest and was absent for TIME , after which they returned home and agreed that PERSON PERSON would give the applicant a ride the following morning “ to meet the boss ” . They drove to the place DATE and PERSON PERSON and his father waited for the applicant in the car . The applicant returned without his jacket , very agitated , and informed them that he had encountered suspicious individuals . During the trip the applicant threw away his boots and his gloves out of the window . Mr PERSON ’s father gave an analogous statement ;

- PERSON depositions , given during the pre - trial investigation , that on CARDINAL DATE at TIME she had seen a man standing on the railroad bridge with a big dark bag near him , his hands in the pockets ;

- an expert assessment of the bullets fired at Mr ORG , according to which the bullets could have been shot from a gun of CARDINAL of CARDINAL foreign models ;

- an expert assessment that it was not impossible to fire CARDINAL of those guns when wearing gloves similar to the ones which the applicant had had on him , as identified by PERSON ( his driver ) ;

- CARDINAL forensic assessments of the circumstances and causes of Mr ORG ’s death , which described his wounds and found that the shots had been fired from various distances ;

- the testimony by the applicant ’s boss , in charge of a currency exchange business , concerning the applicant ’s low income ;

- the record of the currency exchange transactions performed by the business in the relevant time , according to which nobody had exchanged any sum higher than USD CARDINAL in a single transaction ; and

- the applicant ’s psychiatric assessment , according to which he suffered from no disorder and was answerable for his actions .

No reference in the text of the judgment was made to the confessional statements by PERSON ORG or to the applicant ’s allegations that they had been given under duress .

Having recited the aforementioned evidence , the court concluded :

“ Having assessed the evidence in the case , the court considers it established that [ the applicant ] .... had committed murder for profit , which is to be qualified under Section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW . His intentional actions , manifested in acquisition , carrying and storage of firearm and ammunition without a respective permit , which have been fully confirmed , fall under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ... ”

NORP The applicant appealed in cassation . He maintained , inter alia , that his conviction lacked evidentiary basis and de facto relied to a decisive extent on the initial depositions by Mr GPE , given by him in the absence of a lawyer when interrogated as a witness without privilege against self - incrimination , and which he had subsequently retracted as given under duress . He maintained that without a reference to those depositions all the other evidence was insufficient to establish the facts , in particular concerning the possession of the gun and the payment of money for the murder .

The applicant ’s lawyer lodged a separate cassation appeal in which he supported the applicant ’s allegations concerning the insufficiency of the inculpating evidence . He noted , in particular , that there was no evidence whatsoever that the applicant had ever had a gun , much less fired it , or that the USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL allegedly given to the applicant had ever existed , much less been transferred to him as suggested , and submitted that it was not possible to establish exactly where the applicant had been at the time when PERSON ORG had been wounded .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . In the text of its decision it summarised the evidence on which the conviction was based , as well as referring to the confession made by PERSON ORG , as follows :

“ During the hearing [ the trial court ] also examined the statement of [ Mr PERSON ] given during the pre - trial proceedings , in which he confirmed that after having talked with [ PERSON ] he informed [ the applicant ] about that , and the latter said that in order to prepare the murder he needed CARDINAL and USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL for its committal . He gave [ the applicant ] CARDINAL , and the latter showed him a gun he had acquired . After the murder of [ Mr O.M. ] , on DATE he paid [ the applicant ] USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the latter told him that he had disposed of the gun , the jacket , the gloves and the boots .

The arguments of [ the applicant ] that [ Mr ORG ] had falsely accused him and himself under physical pressure by police officers had also been examined and had been found unsubstantiated ... ”

In concluding its reasoning , ORG stated :

“ Therefore , the [ trial ] court has examined all the the premeditated murder for profit of [ Mr O.M. ] and correctly qualified it as an offence defined in LAW ( a ) of LAW . ”

Section CARDINAL ( Aggravated murder ) , paragraph ( a ) , defined “ murder for profit ” as an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to life and by confiscation of property ;

Section CARDINAL ( Murder ) defined “ murder committed in the absence of the aggravating circumstances listed in LAW ” , as an offence , punishable by a term of imprisonment of DATE ;

Section CARDINAL ( Refusal of a witness to testify or of an expert or a translator to perform his duties ) defined a witness ’s refusal to testify as an offence punishable by correctional labour or a fine .

According to Sections CARDINAL ( An Accused and his Rights ) and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( A Suspect ) of the Code , a suspect and an accused have the right to refuse to testify and to consult a lawyer before being questioned for the first time ;

Sections DATE ( Duties of a Witness ) and CARDINAL ( Liability of a Witness ) provide no such guarantees . On DATE the Code was supplemented with LAW of a witness ) , which enabled witnesses to refuse to testify against themselves , their family members and close relatives .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

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

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

In DATE the applicant gave up his post in the ORG engineering plant in order to be appointed to a similar position in a car manufacturing enterprise , PERSON ( “ ATP-CARDINAL ” ) . The latter refused to appoint the applicant to the position sought .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant sued ORG , seeking that it complied with the agreement for his appointment to the post .

On DATE ORG dismissed his claims . ORG upheld the judgment on DATE . On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a new examination .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE ORG of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination .

On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG listed a hearing for DATE .

At a hearing of DATE the applicant amended his claims and claimed compensation for forced absence from work due to the ORG ’s unlawful refusal to appoint him to the post .

On DATE judge PERSON instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had stolen the case file concerning his employment dispute .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of the GPE Regional prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant that there were no reasons to set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He also noted that the local justice department had been ordered to take immediate measures to restore the materials of the case file in respect of the applicant ’s employment dispute .

On DATE ORG of the Moscow Region acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence . The judgment became final on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant requested the President of ORG ( renamed the Sergiyev ORG after the town of PERSON had been renamed ORG ) to restore the case file regarding his employment dispute and to pursue its examination of his claims against ORG . The applicant submitted the receipt card showing that the request had been received by ORG on DATE . On DATE the President informed the applicant that his employment claims would be adjudicated after the examination of the criminal case against him .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ORG forwarded to ORG repeated requests by the applicant for restoration of the case file ( заявление о восстановлении утраченного судебного производства ) with a view to proceeding with the examination of his employment dispute , further to the decision of DATE . Those requests were accompanied by the documents from the file preserved by the applicant . In its letter of CARDINAL DATE the court noted that in case of dismissal of the applicant ’s request to restore the case file the courts were to advise the applicant on his right to re - submit his employment dispute to the courts by means of ordinary civil proceedings . It appears that no action was taken in response to the above requests .

By decision of DATE , ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s requests to restore the case file , as formulated in his application of DATE and a telegram of CARDINAL DATE respectively . The court referred to the ongoing criminal proceedings and held that it could not examine the applicant ’s requests until his exculpation .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the matter to ORG for a fresh examination .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE advised the applicant that the ORG of ORG had forwarded his request for restoration of the case file to ORG for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG forwarded to the President of ORG a complaint by the applicant about the failure to examine his request for restoration of the case file , as ordered by the decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG noted that , according to ORG registry , the related proceedings were still pending before ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the LAW entered into force in respect of GPE .

On DATE ORG forwarded to ORG a further complaint by the applicant about the failure to examine his requests for restoration of the case file . It ordered ORG to take all necessary measures with a view to pursuing the examination of the applicant ’s request .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused to restore the case file concerning the applicant ’s employment dispute . The court noted that it had returned to the applicant the documents lodged in DATE after the decision of DATE had become legally binding . The applicant had not complied with the court ’s requests to re - submit them . Instead of rectifying the shortcomings , the applicant had chosen to complain to higher courts , declaring that the documents were already with ORG . In the absence of the relevant documents and any intention on the part of the applicant to submit them , it had to terminate the proceedings . It advised the applicant that it was open to him to re - submit his employment dispute to ORG .

It appears that the applicant was not present at the hearing and was not served with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The decision was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant renewed his request to ORG to restore his case file and to adjudicate his employment dispute .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . It noted that the applicant had asked it to restore the file and had submitted copies of documents related to his employment dispute . However , those documents had not been duly certified . They had been partly typewritten and partly handwritten by the applicant , which cast doubt on their authenticity . The applicant had not submitted any other documents and the court itself had been unable to obtain any documents . PERSON had been declared insolvent . DATE had passed since the case file had been stolen and the applicant had requested to restore it only in DATE . It was impossible to examine authentic written exhibits ( evidence ) related to the applicant ’s labour action . The court finally noted that it was open to the applicant to re - submit his employment dispute to ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision . It appears that the applicant was provided with both decisions in due time .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE ORG , as in force at the material time , provided that civil cases were to be prepared for a hearing DATE after the action had been lodged with the court . In exceptional cases , this period could be extended for DATE . Civil cases were to be examined DATE after the preparation for the hearing had been completed .

Annex No . CARDINAL to LAW , as in force at the material time , provided that courts were to restore lost case files on their own initiative , upon a request from any of the parties to the case or a prosecutor ( LAW . A request to restore the case file was to be lodged with the court which had examined the case on the merits ( LAW . It was to contain detailed information about the case and to be accompanied by all relevant documents or their copies from the file , preserved by the interested person , even if they were not duly certified ( LAW .

In examining the request , the court was to use the remaining documents , documents handed over from the case file to third persons or organisations , and copies of those documents and other certificates relevant to the case . It could also examine as witnesses persons who could provide information on procedural steps taken in the course of the proceedings , including members of the court , when necessary ( DATE ) .

If the materials accumulated during the proceedings were insufficient for an adequate restoration of the case file , the court terminated the proceedings by means of a decision ( определение ) . In that case it was open to the interested person to re - submit his / her civil claims to the courts by way of ordinary proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) .