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

CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was injured in his primary school while climbing on a roof of a gymnasium under construction .

On DATE the applicant , who was a minor at that time , instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) against ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) claiming compensation amounting to CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT ) . He also sought an exemption from court fees .

On DATE and DATE the applicant made requests for a hearing .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed pleadings .

On DATE a hearing was held . The court decided to appoint CARDINAL medical experts , namely , a surgeon , an orthopaedist and a urologist .

On DATE the court issued CARDINAL decisions appointing the above - mentioned medical experts .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed pleadings . On DATE he requested a copy of the expert opinions and on DATE he filed pleadings .

On DATE he requested the court to set a hearing and on DATE he filed pleadings .

On DATE a hearing was held . The court heard witnesses and adjourned the hearing in order to call other witnesses .

On DATE the applicant lodged additional evidence .

On DATE a hearing was held and adjourned in order to summon CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the applicant filed pleadings .

On DATE a hearing was held . The witnesses were heard and the court decided to appoint an expert in workplace safety .

On DATE and DATE the applicant filed pleadings .

On DATE ORG issued a decision appointing the expert .

On DATE the applicant filed pleadings .

On DATE a hearing was held . The court decided to summon the workplace safety expert .

On DATE ORG issued a decision concerning an appointment .

On DATE the applicant filed pleadings .

On DATE a hearing was held . The court examined the workplace safety expert and decided to appoint another expert , namely a clinical psychologist . On DATE the applicant filed additional evidence . On DATE ORG issued a decision concerning the appointment of the clinical psychologist .

On DATE the ORG handed down a judgment granting the applicant ’s claim in part .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . The proceedings are pending before ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG Attorney General officially informed the ORG that , further to its judgment in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALX ) binding ORG to adopt appropriate legal measures and administrative practices in order to secure the right to a trial within reasonable time , GPE Right to a Trial without undue Delay ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) had been enacted on DATE . LAW came into force on DATE and became operational on CARDINAL DATE .

The following provisions of the DATE LAW are relevant here :

“ Everyone has the right to have any decision regarding his rights , duties and any charges brought against him made without undue delay by an independent , impartial court constituted by law .

“ Everyone shall have the right to compensation for damage caused by the unlawful acts of a person or body when performing a function or engaged in an activity on behalf of a state or local authority or as a holder of public office . ... ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall hear :

... constitutional appeals in which specific acts are alleged to have infringed a human right or fundamental freedom ; ...

Unless otherwise provided by law , the Constitutional Court shall hear a constitutional appeal only if legal remedies have been exhausted . The Constitutional Court shall decide whether a constitutional appeal is admissible for adjudication on the basis of statutory criteria and procedures . ”

Following the judgment in GPE ( cited above ) and decision no . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG ( DATE ) , both binding ORG to establish conditions in which the right to a trial without undue delay must be afforded , ORG adopted on DATE a ORG on ORG , the so - called ORG . Its goal is the elimination of backlogs in NORP courts and prosecutor ’s offices by DATE , by providing for structural and managerial reform of the judiciary .

The preparation of LAW was part of ORG .

LAW has been implemented since DATE . Under its sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the right to a trial within a reasonable time is guaranteed for a party to court proceedings , a participant under the LAW governing non - contentious proceedings and an injured party in criminal proceedings .

Section CARDINAL provides for CARDINAL remedies to expedite pending proceedings - a supervisory appeal ( nadzorstvena pritožba ) and a motion for a deadline ( rokovni predlog ) - and , ultimately , for a claim for just satisfaction in respect of damage sustained because of the undue delay ( zahteva za pravično zadoščenje ) .

Section CARDINAL defines the criteria that domestic authorities should take into account when assessing the complaints :

“ When deciding on the legal remedies under LAW , the circumstances of the particular case shall be taken into account , namely : its complexity in terms of facts and law ; actions of the parties to the proceedings , in particular as regards the use of procedural rights and fulfilment of obligations in the proceedings ; compliance with rules on the set order for resolving cases , or with statutory deadlines for fixing preliminary hearings or for giving court decisions ; the manner in which the case was heard before a supervisory appeal or a motion for a deadline was lodged ; the nature and type of case and its importance for a party . ”

The supervisory appeal is governed by sections CARDINAL and DATE , which provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If a party considers that the court is unduly protracting the decision - making , he or she may lodge a supervisory appeal in writing before the court hearing the case ; the decision thereon is taken by the .... president of the court ( hereinafter ‘ the president of the ORG ) .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of decision - making concerning the protection of the right to a trial without undue delay , the supervisory appeal shall contain the following elements :

– personal name or company name or any other name of the party , its address of permanent or temporary residence or registered office ;

– personal name or company name or any other name of the representative or legal representative and its permanent or temporary residence or registered office ;

– indication of the court hearing the case ;

– reference number of the case or date on which the case was filed in the court ;

– indication of circumstances or other particulars concerning the case , which demonstrate that the court is unduly protracting the decision - making ;

– handwritten signature of the party , representative or lawyer . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal is manifestly unfounded having regard to the timetable for resolving the case concerned by the supervisory appeal , the president of the court shall dismiss the appeal by a ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal does not contain all the required elements referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW , the president of the court shall dismiss it by a ruling . No appeal shall lie against that ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If no ruling as provided for in DATE or CARDINAL of this section is given , the president of the court shall , in the framework of his court management competence under the statute governing the court system , forthwith request the .... judge or chair of a court panel ( hereinafter ‘ the judge’ ) to whom the case has been assigned for resolution to submit a report indicating reasons for the duration of proceedings , not DATE after receiving the request of the president of the court or after obtaining the file , if necessary for drawing up the report . The report shall include the declaration in respect of criteria referred to in DATE of this LAW and the opinion on the time - limit within which the case may be resolved . The president of the court may also require the judge to submit the case file if he assesses that , in the light of allegations of the party indicated in the supervisory appeal , its examination is necessary .

( CARDINAL ) If the judge notifies the president of the court in writing that all relevant procedural acts will be performed or a decision issued within a time - limit not exceeding DATE following the receipt of the supervisory appeal , the president of the court shall inform the party thereof and thus conclude the consideration of the supervisory appeal .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that in view of the criteria referred to in LAW CARDINAL of this Act the court is not unduly protracting the decision - making in the case , he shall dismiss the supervisory appeal by a ruling .

If he orders that appropriate procedural acts be performed by the judge , he shall also set the time - frame for their performance , which may not be DATE and not longer than DATE , as well as the appropriate deadline for the judge to report on the acts performed .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that the undue delay in decision - making in the case is attributable to an excessive workload or an extended absence of the judge , he may order that the case be reassigned . He may also propose that an additional judge be assigned to the court or order other measures in accordance with the statute governing the judicial service .

( CARDINAL) A judge may be assigned by the DATE schedule of allocation to act in place of or together with the president of the court in exercising the court management competence for decision - making in respect of the supervisory appeal . ”

Sections CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL define the motion for a deadline and provide for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the motion . They read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If , under section CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW , the president of the court dismisses the supervisory appeal or fails to respond to the party within DATE or fails to send the notification referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW within the said time - limit or if appropriate procedural acts have not been performed within the time - limit set in the notification or ruling of the president of the court , the party may lodge a motion for a deadline under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW with the court hearing the case .

( CARDINAL ) The party may lodge the motion for a deadline within DATE after receiving the ruling or after the time - limits provided for in paragraph QUANTITY of this section . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The president of the higher court in the judicial area covering the local court , district court or other court of first instance , shall be competent to decide on the motion for a deadline concerning cases heard by the local court , district court or other court of first instance .

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the motion for a deadline is manifestly unfounded , having regard to the timetable for the resolution of the case and the actions of the party , the president of the court shall dismiss it by a ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that , in view of the criteria referred to in section CARDINAL of this Act , the court is unduly protracting the decision - making in the case , he shall order , by a ruling , that the appropriate procedural acts be performed by the judge and shall also set the time - frame for their performance , which may not be DATE and not longer than DATE , as well as set the appropriate deadline for the judge to report on the acts performed .

( CARDINAL ) The president of the court shall decide on the motion for a deadline within DATE after receiving it . ”

Section CARDINAL governs the competence of ORG in cases where a supervisory appeal has been lodged with the ORG rather than with the court of competent jurisdiction :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal is lodged with the Ministry responsible for justice ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Ministry’ ) , the Minister .... responsible for justice ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Minister’ ) shall refer it to the president of the court of competent jurisdiction to hear it in accordance with this LAW and shall ask to be kept informed of the findings and decision .

Further to section CARDINAL , just satisfaction may be provided by payment of monetary compensation , a written statement of ORG or the publication of a judgment :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal lodged by the party was granted or if a motion for a deadline has been lodged , the party may claim just satisfaction under the present Act .

( CARDINAL ) Just satisfaction shall be provided by :

i. payment of monetary compensation for damage caused by a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay ;

ii . a written statement from ORG that the party ’s right to a trial without undue delay was violated ;

iii . the publication of a judgment that the party ’s right to a trial without undue delay was violated . ”

Section CARDINAL provides for a compensatory remedy and fixes the maximum amount that could be awarded :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Monetary compensation shall be payable for non - pecuniary damage caused by a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay . Strict liability for any damage caused shall lie with GPE .

( CARDINAL ) Monetary compensation for individual finally decided cases shall be granted in the amount of CARDINAL up to CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros .

( CARDINAL ) When deciding on the amount of compensation , the criteria referred to in section CARDINAL of this Act shall be taken into account , in particular the complexity of the case , actions of the ORG , actions of the party and the importance of the case for the party . ”

Sections DATE , CARDINAL govern just satisfaction proceedings and proceedings in respect of pecuniary damage :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Proceedings to enforce a claim for just satisfaction , provided that the condition referred to in section CARDINAL ) of this Act is met , shall be instituted by a party by means of a motion for settlement lodged with the State Attorney ’s Office with a view to reaching an agreement on the type or amount of just satisfaction . The party may lodge such motion within DATE after the final resolution of the case . The ORG Attorney ’s Office shall rule on the motion of the party within DATE if it establishes that the just satisfaction claim is substantiated . Until the expiry of the above - mentioned period , the party may not assert any claim for monetary compensation by way of just satisfaction by bringing an action before the competent court .

( CARDINAL ) If , in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the agreement has been reached with the party , the State Attorney ’s Office shall enter into an out - of - court settlement with the party . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) If no agreement under LAW of this LAW is reached upon the motion for settlement , or the ORG Attorney ’s ORG and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within DATE of the motion being lodged , the party may bring an action for damages .

( CARDINAL ) An action for damages against GPE shall be brought not DATE after the final resolution of the party ’s case .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Action in respect of pecuniary damage caused by a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay may be brought by the party within DATE of the final ruling of the court on the party ’s case in accordance with the provisions of LAW concerning pecuniary damage .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL further provide for payment of compensation :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The State Attorney ’s Office shall pay monetary compensation on the basis of the settlement referred to in section LOC ) of this LAW and for all appropriate costs incurred by the party in connection therewith .

( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney ’s Office shall pay monetary compensation and the party ’s costs of the proceedings on the basis of a final court decision which has established the violation of the right to a trial without undue delay in the proceedings , under LAW of the present LAW . ”

“ Funds ... shall be earmarked in LAW within the framework of the financial plan of ORG . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had filed a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this LAW , the ORG Attorney ’s ORG shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within DATE after the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure . The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the ORG Attorney ’s ORG within DATE of receipt of the proposal of the ORG Attorney ’s ORG . The State Attorney ’s Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within DATE at the latest . ...

( CARDINAL ) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section is not acceded to or ORG and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within DATE after the date on which the party filed its proposal , the party may bring an action before the competent court under this LAW . The party may bring an action within DATE after receiving the ORG Attorney ’s ORG reply that the party ’s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to , or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for ORG to decide to proceed with settlement . Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim , the provisions of LAW concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court . ”


CASE OF PARTI NATIONALISTE BASQUE - ORGANISATION REGIONALE D'IPARRALDE v. FRANCE

No violation of Art. 11 or 11+10;Not necessary to examine P1-3

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Jean-Paul Costa;Loukis Loucaides

NORP The applicant party is established as an association registered on the basis of LAW of DATE . Its name in NORP is PERSON – PERSON ( NORP Nationalist Party – Iparralde Regional Organisation ) , and its registered office is in GPE ( GPE ) . “ GPE ” is the NORP designation for part of south - western GPE .

Its constitution of DATE states that it is “ formed as a regional branch of the ORG in the provinces of GPE ( NORP ) , Benafarroa ( ORG ) and PERSON ( PERSON ) ” and adopts “ the national ideology of the ORG - PNB ” and “ the traditional principles and modus operandi of the ORG - PNB to the extent that they are compatible with the present LAW ” . The EAJ - PNV ( PERSON DATE PERSON ; the NORP abbreviation is ORG ) is a political party established under NORP law whose aim is to defend and promote NORP nationalism .

NORP The applicant party states that its activities are the same as those of any political party : it devises political programmes , puts forward candidates for elections and takes part in election campaigns .

NORP In order to be able to receive funds , in particular financial contributions from the EAJ - PNV , the applicant party formed a funding association in accordance with CARDINAL of ORG of DATE . On DATE it applied to ORG nationale des comptes de campagnes et des financements politiques – “ the CCFP ” ) under LAW for authorisation of the funding association .

On DATE the ORG rejected the application , giving the following reasons in its decision :

[ The CCFP ] has been asked to authorise the funding association for the ORG nationaliste basque as that political organisation ’s funding association within the meaning of LAW of LAW of DATE as amended .

It was noted in the ORG ’s opinion published in ORG of DATE ... and was acknowledged by the [ applicant ] party ’s chairman in his letter of DATE that the party receives funds from the NORP ORG .

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , prohibits the funding of a political party by any foreign legal entity [ personne morale ] .

The ORG nationaliste basque receives financial support from the NORP ORG , whose official recognition under NORP law does not in any way remove its status as a foreign legal entity .

Accordingly , this unlawful source of funding , which accounts for most of the resources of the ORG nationaliste basque , precludes the party from having a funding association authorised in accordance with the law .

On DATE the applicant party applied to the ORG to reconsider its decision . The application was refused on DATE in a decision worded as follows :

As to the [ alleged ] absence of a ban on the financing of a NORP political party by a foreign political party :

Having compared the provisions of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , applicable to election campaigns , and LAW CARDINAL of the LAW DATE , the applicant contends that section DATE ... simply states that only a political party can fund another political party and that , contrary to the position regarding election campaigns , no provision of any statute or regulations expressly prohibits the funding of a political party by another political party established under the law of a foreign country .

This argument disregards the fifth subsection of section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE , as amended by the Acts of DATE and DATE , which provides : ‘ No funding association or financial agent may receive direct or indirect contributions or material assistance from a foreign ORG or a foreign legal entity.’

Pursuant to LAW , the intervention of a funding association or financial agent is compulsory for the receipt of funds .

It thus follows from these CARDINAL provisions , read together , that a party can not receive funds from a political party that is a foreign legal entity .

As to the [ alleged ] infringement of the Community principle of the free movement of capital and [ alleged ] incompatibility with developments in national electoral law :

These CARDINAL principles conflict with express provisions of NORP law .

Firstly , the free movement of capital does not prevent local law from regulating certain aspects of this principle .

Secondly , the transnational representativeness of parties does not necessarily presuppose financial support from abroad and , contrary to what the applicant argues , the prohibition of such support does not in any way impair the full exercise of the right to vote and to stand for election . ... ”

On DATE the applicant party applied for judicial review of that decision to the ORG d’Etat , which dismissed the application on DATE in a judgment worded as follows :

Section CARDINAL of ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , in the wording resulting from Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , provides that political parties and their territorial and specialist organisations ‘ collect funds through the intermediary [ of an agent ] duly designated by them , which may be either a funding association or an individual’ . LAW , inserted into LAW DATE by LAW DATE , provides that ‘ authorisation to act as a political party ’s funding association shall be given by ORG . It follows from the first subsection of section CARDINAL - CARDINAL , inserted into LAW of DATE by LAW DATE , that the granting of authorisation is subject to the funding association ’s compliance with the requirements of sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW . Among the requirements concerned are those set forth in the penultimate subsection of LAW , which provides : ‘ No funding association or financial agent of a political party may receive direct or indirect contributions or material assistance from a foreign ORG or a foreign legal entity.’

Substantive legality

The applicant group argues that the Commission erred in its application of section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE and that , should the ORG ’s interpretation be held to prevail , the statutory provisions cited in support of its decision should be struck down as being contrary to the LAW and incompatible with GPE ’s international obligations .

As to the alleged erroneous application of LAW of DATE :

... the penultimate subsection of LAW of DATE prohibits funding associations from receiving financial contributions ‘ from a foreign ORG or a foreign legal entity’ . Foreign political parties , which belong to the category of foreign legal entities , fall within the purview of that prohibition . The amendments resulting from the LAW of DATE to the second subsection of section CARDINAL - CARDINAL with the effect , firstly , of prohibiting a legal entity from funding a party or a political group and , secondly , of excluding ‘ political parties and PERSON from this prohibition on account of the role conferred on them by LAW had neither the purpose nor the effect of exempting foreign political parties from the prohibition on the funding of a NORP political party by any foreign legal entity . Consequently , the applicant group has no basis for arguing that the impugned decision was based on an erroneous application of the provisions of the penultimate subsection of LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Act of CARDINAL March CARDINAL in conjunction with the second subsection of that section .

As to the alleged breach of LAW and of the Citizen :

It is not for the ORG d’Etat , acting in its judicial capacity , to assess whether the law is compatible with LAW . Accordingly , the argument that LAW DATE contravenes LAW and of the Citizen , to which the LAW to the LAW refers , fails .

As to the alleged incompatibility of the law with GPE ’s international obligations :

As regards LAW :

The applicant group relies on ORG , paragraph CARDINAL , of which secures freedom of expression to everyone ‘ without interference by public authority and regardless of borders’ and LAW that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention is to be secured ‘ without [ discrimination ] on any ground such as ... national ... origin ... ’ .

Even accepting , as the applicant group argues , that the rules on the conditions for funding political parties have a bearing on the right to freedom of expression within the meaning of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , which includes , as well as the freedom to hold opinions , ‘ the freedom to receive and impart information and PERSON , paragraph CARDINAL of the same Article nonetheless provides that ‘ [ CARDINAL exercise of these freedoms , since it carries with it duties and responsibilities’ , may be subject to such ‘ restrictions ... as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society’ to the extent that they satisfy CARDINAL or other of the requirements set forth in that paragraph , among which is ‘ the prevention of disorder’ .

Political groups and parties falling within the purview of LAW are intended to contribute to the exercise of suffrage in the implementation of national sovereignty . In prohibiting foreign GPE and foreign legal entities from funding national political parties , the legislature sought to preclude the possibility of creating a relationship of dependency which would be detrimental to the expression of national sovereignty . The aim thus pursued is linked to the ‘ prevention of disorder’ within the meaning of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . On account of both the justification of this measure and the fact that the right to freedom of expression is affected only indirectly by the rules governing the funding of political parties , and in view of the margin of appreciation which LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , affords the national legislature , the provisions of section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE are not incompatible either with the requirements of LAW , or indeed with those of LAW .

As regards Community law :

The applicant group argues that since the resources obtained by the funding association whose authorisation has been refused stem from a political party with its registered office in a member ORG of ORG , the provisions of the penultimate subsection of section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE , in so far as they apply to a situation governed by Community law , are incompatible with a number of provisions of the LAW establishing ORG .

Thirdly , even supposing that the rules governing the funding of political parties may , in certain respects , have a bearing on the free movement of capital between member States as guaranteed by LAW , that LAW CARDINAL clearly indicates , does not affect the right of member GPE to ‘ take measures which are justified on grounds of ... public security’ . Regard being had both to the aim it pursues and to the limited impact it has on the free movement of capital , the prohibition set forth in the penultimate subsection of LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Act of CARDINAL March CARDINAL is to be counted among the measures that may be taken by a member ORG under LAW . Accordingly , the submission that the LAW is incompatible with LAW must be dismissed .

Fourthly , the provisions of section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE , which , as stated above , are intended to avoid creating any relationship of dependency between political parties in the performance of their function and a foreign ORG or a foreign legal entity , are likewise not incompatible with the provisions of LAW , which appear in a part of LAW dealing with the Community institutions and more specifically ORG , and which read : ‘ Political parties at NORP level are important as a factor for integration within the Union . They contribute to forming a NORP awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the ORG Accordingly , and even supposing that Article CARDINAL creates any rights in respect of private individuals , this submission must fail . ... ”

The first paragraph of LAW DATE provides :

“ Political parties and groups shall contribute to the exercise of suffrage . They shall be formed and carry on their activities freely . They shall respect the principles of national sovereignty and democracy . ”

Section CARDINAL of ORG ( Law no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE ) reaffirms that “ political parties and groups shall be formed and shall carry on their activities freely ” , adding that they have legal personality and are entitled to take part in court proceedings and to acquire movable and immovable property , by way of gift or for consideration , and that they “ may perform any actions consistent with their purpose , including establishing and running newspapers and training institutions in accordance with the statutory provisions in force ” .

The financing of politics in general and political parties in particular is governed by law ( main source : technical files on the ORG ’s website , ORG ) .

In addition to the operating costs they have to meet in the same way as any other association , political parties incur significant expenditure during election campaigns . They have CARDINAL main sources of funds : private funding , which is generally modest , and ORG funding , which nowadays accounts for a decisive share .

Like any association , political parties may charge membership fees . In practice , however , these account for only a very small proportion of their resources .

The Act of DATE ( as amended ) gives them the further possibility of receiving donations from individuals ( donations from other legal entities are in principle prohibited ) ; however , voluntary contributions from individuals are traditionally modest .

The following provisions of LAW DATE ( as amended ) are relevant to the present case :

“ Political parties and the territorial or specialist organisations they may designate for this purpose shall collect funds through the intermediary of an agent duly designated by them , which may be either a funding association or an individual . ”

“ Authorisation of a political party ’s funding association shall be granted by ORG referred to in Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , provided that the sole object of the association is the funding of a political party and that its articles of association comply with the provisions of the following subsections of this section . The authorisation shall be published in ORG .

The articles of an association authorised to act as a political party ’s funding association must include :

( CARDINAL ) the delimitation of the geographical area within which the association is to carry on its activities ; and

( CARDINAL ) an undertaking to open a single bank or post - office account into which all donations received for the funding of a political party are to be deposited . ”

“ The political party shall declare in writing to the prefecture of the département in which its registered office is situated the name of the individual it has chosen as its financial agent . The declaration must be accompanied by the express consent of the person designated and must specify the geographical area within which the financial agent is to perform his or her duties .

The financial agent must open a single bank or post - office account into which all donations received for the funding of the political party are to be deposited . ”

“ Donations made by duly identified individuals to CARDINAL or more associations authorised as funding associations or to CARDINAL or more financial agents of the same political party may not exceed QUANTITY per annum .

Other legal entities , with the exception of political parties or groups , may not contribute to the funding of political parties or groups , either by making donations in any form to their funding associations or financial agents or by providing them with property , services or other direct or indirect benefits for less than the usual price .

The funding association or financial agent shall provide the donor with a receipt . A decree issued after consultation of the ORG d’Etat shall lay down the conditions for drawing up and using such receipts . This decree shall also determine the procedure whereby receipts issued for donations by individuals of amounts lower than or equal to QUANTITY shall not mention the name of the receiving party or group .

All donations of MONEY to a funding association or financial agent of a political party must be made by cheque .

No funding association or financial agent of a political party may receive direct or indirect contributions or material assistance from a foreign ORG or a foreign legal entity .

Notices and documents issued by the funding association or financial agent to third parties for the purpose of soliciting donations must indicate , as appropriate , the name of the association and the date of its authorisation or the name of the agent and the date of the declaration to the prefecture , and also the political party or group for which the sums collected are intended . ”

“ Anyone who makes or accepts donations in breach of the provisions of the preceding section shall be liable to a fine of MONEY or DATE imprisonment or both . ”

“ The authorisation of any association that has failed to comply with the requirements laid down in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE of this Act shall be revoked .

In that event , or where the summary statement mentioned in LAW is found not to have been transmitted , the votes obtained in the geographical area of the association ’s activity by the political party or group which requested its authorisation shall be discounted , for DATE , from the total referred to in the first subsection of section CARDINAL above . ”

“ No political party or group which has obtained authorisation for a funding association or has appointed a financial agent may receive donations from duly identified persons other than through the intermediary of such association or agent . In the event of a breach of this requirement , the provisions of the last subsection of LAW shall apply . ”

DATE , appropriations are set aside in the Budget Bill for political parties and groups ; CARDINAL is allocated according to their results in the last election to ORG and the other CARDINAL according to their representation in ORG ( section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE as amended ) . The first portion of these subsidies is distributed among parties and groups which put forward candidates who each obtained PERCENT of the votes cast in CARDINAL constituencies in the most recent election to ORG , or which put forward candidates solely in CARDINAL or more overseas départements or in GPE and GPE , GPE , GPE , NORP GPE or GPE who obtained PERCENT of the votes cast in all constituencies in which they stood . The second portion is distributed among parties and groups eligible for the first portion , in proportion to the number of members of parliament belonging to or attached to them ( section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE as amended ) .

State subsidies are now the main source of political parties’ funding ( MONEY ( ORG ) was distributed among CARDINAL parties or groups in DATE ) .

In addition , the ORG grants parties resources which may be regarded as indirect funding . Outside election campaign periods , political organisations represented by parliamentary groups in ORG or the ORG are entitled to “ air time ” , allowing them to broadcast on public radio stations and television channels ; they are also granted certain tax concessions ( reduced - rate corporation tax ) on some of their own income ( for example , from leasing out their buildings and undeveloped land ) .

Except in the case of the election of département councillors in cantons with CARDINAL inhabitants or municipal councillors in municipalities with CARDINAL inhabitants , all candidates intending to receive donations for the organisation of their campaigns are required to do so through a financial agent , who is the sole person entitled to collect funds to cover campaign costs and the payment of expenses ( except for those borne by a political party or group ) . Donations from individuals are capped at ORG CARDINAL per candidate per campaign . Contributions from other legal entities , with the exception of political parties and groups , and from foreign GPE or foreign legal entities are prohibited ( Articles PERSON and LAW of LAW ) . Election expenditure is subject to a ceiling according to the number of inhabitants in the constituency concerned ( Article PERSON of LAW ) . The financial agent must keep campaign accounts recording all receipts and expenditure relating to the election campaign . The accounts must be certified by an accountant and submitted to the scrutiny of ORG , which approves or rejects them . If the accounts are approved , the ORG reimburses candidates who obtain PERCENT of the votes cast in the first round in the form of a lump sum of PERCENT of the maximum permitted expenditure in the constituency in question , within the limits of the amounts actually spent ( see , in particular , Article PERSON of LAW ) .

The ORG bears the costs associated with “ official election material ” , defined as the cost of paper , printing of ballot papers , circulars , posters and official billposting fees ( these costs are reimbursed on the basis of an official scale to candidates obtaining PERCENT of the votes cast ) .

At its CARDINALth plenary meeting ( DATE ) , ORG adopted guidelines on the financing of political parties ( document ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL) , the relevant parts of which read :

“ ORG :

Being engaged in the promotion of fundamental principles of democracy , of the rule of law and the protection of human rights , and in the context of improving democratic security for all ;

Noting with concern problems relating to the illicit financing of political parties recently uncovered in a number of ORG member GPE ;

Taking into account the essential role of political parties within democracy and considering that freedom of association , including that of political association , is a fundamental freedom protected by LAW and is one of the cornerstones of genuine democracy , such as that envisaged by LAW ;

Paying particular attention to ORG practice in the area of financing of political parties ;

Recognising the need to further promote standards in this area on the basis of the values of NORP legal heritage ;

Has adopted the following guidelines :

For the purpose of these guidelines , a political party is an association of persons CARDINAL of the aims of which is to participate in the management of public affairs by the presentation of candidates to free and democratic elections .

Such political parties may seek out and receive funds by means of public or private financing .

NORP Regular Financing

a. Public Financing

Public financing must be aimed at each party represented in ORG .

NORP In order , however , to ensure the equality of opportunities for the different political forces , public financing could also be extended to political bodies representing a significant section of the electoral body and presenting candidates for election . The level of financing could be fixed by legislator on a periodic basis , according to objective criteria .

Tax exemptions can be granted for operations strictly connected to the parties’ political activity .

The financing of political parties through public funds should be on condition that the accounts of political parties shall be subject to control by specific public organs ( for example by ORG ) . States shall promote a policy of financial transparency of political parties that benefit from public financing .

b. Private Financing

Political parties may receive private financial donations . Donations from foreign GPE or enterprises must however be prohibited . This prohibition should not prevent financial donations from nationals living abroad .

Other limitations may also be envisaged . Such may consist notably of :

a. a maximum level for each contribution ;

b. a prohibition of contributions from enterprises of an industrial , or commercial nature or from religious organisations ;

c. prior control of contributions by members of parties who wish to stand as candidates in elections by public organs specialised in electoral matters .

The transparency of private financing of each party should be guaranteed . In achieving this aim , each party should make public DATE the DATE accounts of DATE , which should incorporate a list of all donations other than membership fees . All donations exceeding an amount fixed by the legislator must be recorded and made public .

On DATE ORG of ORG adopted Recommendation DATE ) on the financing of political parties , the relevant parts of which read :

The ORG believes that the rules on financing political parties and on electoral campaigns must be based on the following principles : a reasonable balance between public and private funding , fair criteria for the distribution of ORG contributions to parties , strict rules concerning private donations , a threshold on parties’ expenditures linked to election campaigns , complete transparency of accounts , the establishment of an independent audit authority and meaningful sanctions for those who violate the rules .

Accordingly , the ORG considers that :

NORP As regards sources of finance

i. States should encourage ORG participation in the activities of political parties , including their financial support to parties . It should be accepted that membership fees , traditional and non - controversial sources of finance , are not sufficient to face the ever increasing expense of political competition .

ii . Political parties should receive financial contributions from the ORG budget in order to prevent dependence on private donors and to guarantee equality of chances between political parties . State financial contributions should , on the one hand , be calculated in ratio to the political support which the parties enjoy , evaluated on objective criteria such as the number of votes cast or the number of parliamentary seats won , and on the other hand enable new parties to enter the political arena and to compete under fair conditions with the more well - established parties .

iii . State support should not exceed the level strictly necessary to achieve the above objectives , since excessive reliance on ORG funding can lead to the weakening of links between parties and their electorate .

iv . Besides their financial contributions , GPE may contribute indirectly to financing political parties based on law , for example by covering the costs of postage and of meeting rooms , by supporting party media , youth organisations and research institutes ; and also by granting tax incentives .

v. PERSON with ORG funding , private funding is an essential source of finance for political parties . As private financing , in particular donations , creates opportunities for influence and corruption , the following rules should apply :

a. a ban on donations from ORG enterprises , enterprises under ORG control , or firms which provide goods or services to the public administration sector ;

b. a ban on donations from companies domiciliated in offshore centres ;

c. strict limitations on donations from legal entities ;

d. a legal limit on the maximum sum of donations ;

e. a ban on donations by religious institutions .

In Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of DATE on common rules against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns , ORG recommended that the governments of member States “ specifically limit , prohibit or otherwise regulate donations from foreign donors ” ( Article CARDINAL ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , former Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant set up a deal with a certain PERSON ( “ the debtor ” ) : CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) for a ORG car . The debtor took the applicant ’s money but never handed the car over to the applicant .

The applicant lodged a civil action against PERSON DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered that PERSON pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) . The judgment became binding on DATE .

On DATE a bailiff of GPE ( “ the bailiff ” ) opened enforcement proceedings .

The parties disagree as to the subsequent events DATE .

According to the applicant , the bailiff was inactive throughout this period and later forged enquiries to a bank and ORG backdated to DATE .

According to the Government , the bailiff took certain steps aimed at enforcing the judgment . On DATE the bailiff issued a charging order in respect of the debtor ’s cars , then had it transferred to FAC DATE . On DATE the debtor ’s garage was attached . On DATE the bailiff checked the state of the debtor ’s possessions . On DATE the bailiff drew up an inventory of the debtor ’s movable assets . DATE and DATE the enforcement proceedings were transferred to LOC service . The latter found that none of the debtor ’s property remained in LOC , so the enforcement proceedings were transferred back to LOC .

Further events are not disputed by the parties .

In DATE the bailiff attached part of a flat jointly owned by the debtor and his former wife , instructed ORG to impound the debtor ’s ORG car , if it could be located , made enquiries about the debtor ’s place of work and issued an order to retain CARDINAL of the debtor ’s salary every month for the benefit of the applicant , and suggested that the applicant accept the spare parts of a disassembled ORG car discovered in the debtor ’s attached garage as part satisfaction of the debt .

In DATE the debtor was asked by the bailiff to bring his ORG and PERSON cars to the bailiffs’ office , but failed to do so . In DATE the debtor , twice fined by the bailiff for failure to hand over his property , told the bailiff that he had sold the ORG in DATE to ORG . , and that the PERSON had been sold DATE , in DATE . By a judgment of DATE , which became binding on DATE , ORG confirmed that the debtor was still the legal owner of the ORG and that therefore the attachment of the vehicle was legal . As the ORG could not be located , the bailiffs conducted a search for it . Having yielded no results , the search was discontinued in DATE .

Some of the debtor ’s assets were not liable to seizure because the property was jointly owned by the debtor and his ex - wife , so the applicant brought a court action seeking division of their common assets . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which became binding on DATE , ORG determined how the property in question was to be divided . According to the judgment , the debtor received in property a part of the flat and the garage , whereas the PERSON and the disassembled ORG acquired in the course of the marriage and registered at FAC in the debtor ’s name were given to the debtor ’s ex - wife .

By a decision of DATE ORG confirmed in the final instance that the debtor ’s part of the flat was not liable to seizure because it was the only home he had .

On DATE the debtor ’s garage , for which no bids had been made at auction , was given to the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings . The applicant continued to receive DATE payments held back from the debtor ’s salary .

In the meantime , the applicant sued ORG for inflationary losses supposedly caused by the GPE inactivity during the enforcement of the judgment .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claim , but on DATE that decision was quashed on appeal and the matter was remitted for fresh examination before a first - instance court .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim in full . It held , inter alia , that , although the bailiffs had failed on several occasions to respect the procedural time - limits , there was no causal link between the bailiffs’ conduct and the alleged losses . On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .

LAW of the NORP federal law “ On Enforcement Procedure ” ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides that a search for a debtor ’s missing property must be conducted by a bailiff if paid for in advance by a creditor . The creditor shall have the right to recover the incurred expenses from the debtor .

LAW same law provides for certain measures which a bailiff may take when private persons or public officials fail to comply with lawful orders , provide false information about a debtor ’s income and financial status , do not inform a bailiff about the debtor ’s dismissal from work , a change of the debtor ’s places of work or residence or when they do not respond to the bailiff ’s summonses . These measures include a fine of CARDINAL minimum wages , escorting a defaulting party by force to a place where enforcement actions are performed and institution of criminal proceedings .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants are CARDINAL NORP nationals who live in GPE . Their further particulars are set out in the appendix . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

The applicants were elected as members of ORG for a DATE period from DATE . The mayor prevented them from carrying out their functions and stopped paying remuneration to them for the period from DATE to DATE . The applicants and another individual sued the municipality for unpaid remuneration totalling the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) .

As the municipality paid ORG CARDINAL to them , the claimants decided to withdraw their claim in respect of that sum on DATE .

On DATE ORG accepted in part the applicants’ claims for remuneration , to which they considered themselves entitled as members of the municipal council . The sums awarded to the applicants ranged between ORG CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL , plus default interest amounting to PERCENT per year as from DATE in respect of CARDINAL of the sum awarded to each applicant , and PERCENT per year as from DATE in respect of the remainder . ORG discontinued the proceedings , at the PERSON request , in respect of the sum the municipality had already paid .

Both parties appealed . CARDINAL applicant claimed an additional ORG CARDINAL and QUANTITY other applicants the equivalent of FAC each . The applicants also challenged the first - instance court ’s decision on costs .

On DATE ORG amended the first - instance judgment by dismissing the PERSON claims . It held that ORG had erred in interpreting the law . During the relevant period the applicants had not carried out their functions as members of the municipal council . They were not , therefore , entitled to remuneration for such activities , irrespective of why the situation had arisen . The judgment stated that the applicants were employed or retired . Their posts as municipal councillors related to public functions which could not be regarded as employment . Any remuneration would be due to the applicants only if they had carried out those functions . The decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the sum which the defendant had paid remained unaffected .

ORG further amended the first - instance court ’s judgment by ordering the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal costs in respect of the ORG proceedings . It also ordered each of the claimants to pay the equivalent of approximately ORG CARDINAL in respect of costs advanced by the ORG . ORG judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law under LAW . They argued that ORG had committed errors of law in determining their claims .

On DATE they also lodged a constitutional complaint . They alleged that ORG had breached their constitutional right to judicial protection . In their complaint the applicants mentioned that they had lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG rejected the complaint . The decision stated that the applicants had at their disposal a remedy before the ordinary courts , namely an appeal on points of law under LAW . The court dealing with such an appeal had jurisdiction to review all the factual and legal aspects of the case . In those circumstances , it was not for ORG to hear the appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeal on points of law as inadmissible . It established that the highest sums claimed by the individual applicants amounted to the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL . They were thus smaller than CARDINAL times the statutory minimum wage ( which , at the relevant time , was the equivalent of LAW ) . In such cases , an appeal on points of law was excluded pursuant to LAW . ORG decision was served on the applicants on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged a second constitutional complaint , directed against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . They alleged a breach of their right to a fair hearing in that ORG had committed errors of law . With reference to ORG decision , they argued that an appeal on points of law had been excluded in their case . The obstacle which resulted in ORG rejecting their first complaint had thus been overcome .

On DATE ORG rejected the second complaint as having been lodged outside the statutory time - limit of DATE . The decision stated that the applicants should have “ linked ” their constitutional complaint and the rationale of ORG decision to the decision of ORG even if , as it seemed to be the case , they had accepted the latter ’s conclusion . The decision was served on DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL allows for an appeal on points of law against a judgment in which the appellate court has amended the first - instance court ’s judgment on its merits . However , LAW excludes an appeal on points of law in cases where the appellate court judgment concerns the payment of sums the amount of which does not exceed CARDINAL times the statutory minimum wage .

Under section CARDINAL ) , ORG is bound by a request from a claimant for proceedings to be started unless the LAW expressly provides otherwise .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a complaint to ORG can be lodged within DATE from the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding , the date on which a measure has been notified , or the date on which notice of other interference has been given .

In a number of decisions delivered from DATE ( including , amongst others , nos . ORG , II . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , and GPE . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG held that , where a claimant lodged an appeal on points of law and , at the same time , a constitutional complaint , the latter remedy was considered admissible only after the determination of the former . Similarly , in decisions no . III . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG expressed the view that , in cases where ORG rejected an appeal on points of law as being inadmissible , the statutory time - limit for lodging a constitutional complaint would also be considered to have been complied with in respect of the preceding final decision of the regional court concerned . Reference was made to the ORG ’s judgment in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , ORG CARDINALIX ) .


No violation of Art. 6-2;Violation of Art. 6-2;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Christos Rozakis;Flogaitis;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Spyridon Flogaitis

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

From DATE he was a professor of international relations at ORG in GPE . DATE he was President of ORG . At the time of the DATE general elections the applicant was appointed Press Minister ad interim . DATE he was Minister PERSON to ORG .

In DATE an administrative investigation into the DATE financial management of ORG was ordered by the university authorities . The resulting report was submitted to the public prosecutor at ORG , who brought criminal proceedings against CARDINAL members of the ORG ’s teaching staff who had been President or Vice - President in DATE , including Mr FAC . The applicant was charged with being an accomplice to forgery , defrauding the State of MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , misrepresentation and misappropriation of public funds . By decision of the public prosecutor at ORG , he and CARDINAL other accused were immediately committed to stand trial ( summons no . DATE ) . The case attracted considerable media attention .

On DATE ORG of ORG endorsed the public prosecutor ’s decision and decided to drop the criminal charges against some of the accused . As to the applicant , it considered that he had “ played a major role in the commission of the offences ” ( decision no . DATE ) .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant and CARDINAL others to DATE imprisonment for misappropriation of public funds , fraud against the ORG and misrepresentation ( judgment no . DATE ) . Mr ORG immediately appealed and ORG ordered a stay of execution of his sentence pending the judgment on appeal .

On DATE , during a plenary debate in ORG , the Deputy Minister of Finance referred to the proceedings in question , stating that certain opposition MPs had been heard by ORG as witnesses for the defence . In particular , he said :

“ Who are these incorruptible people ? The denigrators , the renowned MPs of ORG ( PASOK ) and former ORG who rushed to the defence of the Panteion bunch of crooks ? Were they or were they not your personal and political friends ? Did n’t you appoint them acting Ministers for the Press , Ministers Plenipotentiary to ORG , when the Panteion scandals were coming to light ? They were your friends , dear colleagues , and you hastened to defend them before the ORG . You even steal from each other . According to the newspaper MONEY Vima’ , your friends even stole money from Mr PERSON [ a former Prime Minister ] ! ”

On DATE , during a plenary debate in ORG , the Prime Minister referred to the case saying that it was “ an unprecedented scandal of deliberate and planned embezzlement of MONEY for the benefit of those involved , to the detriment of ORG ” .

On DATE , addressing the opposition in ORG , the Minister of ORG said :

“ Remember the Panteion scandal . The NORP courts boldly and resolutely convicted all those you were protecting all this time . ”

According to the case file , the case is still pending before ORG . Judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG was finalised on DATE . ...

The relevant Articles of the Civil Code read as follows :

“ Any person whose personal rights are unlawfully infringed shall be entitled to bring proceedings to enforce cessation of the infringement and restraint of any future infringement . Where the personal rights infringed are those of a deceased person , the right to bring proceedings shall be vested in his spouse , descendants , ascendants , brothers , sisters and testamentary beneficiaries .

In addition , claims for damages in accordance with the provisions relating to unlawful acts shall not be excluded . ”

“ In the cases provided for in DATE , the court may , in the judgment it gives on the application of the person whose right has been infringed , and regard being had to the nature of the infringement , also order the infringer to make reparation for the plaintiff ’s non - pecuniary damage . Such reparation shall consist in the payment of a sum of money , publication of the ORG

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Introductory Law to LAW read as follows :

“ The ORG shall be liable , in accordance with the provisions of LAW concerning legal persons , for acts or omissions of its organs regarding private - law relations or ORG assets . ”

“ The ORG shall be under a duty to make good any damage caused by the unlawful acts or omissions of its organs in the exercise of public authority , except where the unlawful act or omission is in breach of an existing provision but is intended to serve the public interest . The person responsible shall be jointly and severally liable , without prejudice to the special provisions on ministerial responsibility . ”

The above section establishes the concept of a special prejudicial act in public law , creating ORG liability in tort . This liability results from unlawful acts or omissions . The acts concerned may be not only legal acts but also physical acts by the administrative authorities , including acts which are not in principle enforceable through the courts ( PERSON , Interpretation of the Civil Code , section CARDINAL of the Introductory Law to LAW , no . CARDINAL ; ORG , Contract Law , ORG , volume CARDINAL , Tort , DATE , para . CARDINAL B CARDINAL ; PERSON , Administrative Law , CARDINALrd edition , para . CARDINAL ; ORG judgment no . CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , p. CARDINAL ; ORG judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . The admissibility of an action for damages is subject to CARDINAL condition , namely , the unlawfulness of the act or omission .


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

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

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

On DATE the applicant and his father lodged an action with ORG ( okresní soud ) seeking to determine the title to certain real estate .

It appears that the proceedings are still pending .

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

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that his application had been accepted , that it had been found that his right to a determination of his civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that he had been awarded a sum of CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) as just satisfaction .

On DATE the applicant informed the Registry that he had brought a civil action against ORG in the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended seeking to be paid CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as a remainder of his compensation claims which had not been granted by ORG .

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


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant is a limited company under NORP law with its registered office in GPE .

The applicant company ran an art gallery in GPE . In judgments of CARDINAL DATE and PERCENT CARDINAL , ORG ordered its judicial reorganisation , followed by its compulsory liquidation . On DATE , there being no more outstanding debts , the court terminated the liquidation proceedings .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the tax authorities inspected the applicant company ’s accounts for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE they sent them CARDINAL supplementary tax assessments DATE and CARDINAL for DATE and DATE – inter alia for supplementary tax on precious metals , jewellery , works of art , ORG items and antiques ( hereinafter “ the tax on works of art ” ) , in accordance with the provisions of ORG CARDINAL bis A to CARDINAL bis E of LAW ( since DATE , Articles CARDINAL V bis to CARDINAL V sexies of the same code ) .

In addition to the additional tax , the applicant company was charged interest for late payment and a fine was imposed under LAW ( LAW ) , equal at that time to PERCENT of the unpaid tax . On DATE the company was served with a demand to pay a total of MONEY ( ( FRF ) – MONEY ( ORG ) ) , of which the fine accounted for CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL or EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant company , represented by its court - appointed administrator , lodged a complaint with the Director of Revenue seeking relief from all the surcharges and fines demanded . It alleged on the one hand that the tax on works of art could be likened either to a value - added tax , which was contrary to Directives CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC and CARDINAL of the ORG establishing special provisions applicable , inter alia , to works of art and ORG items , or to a capital - gains tax , with an effect equivalent to an export restriction or an internal taxation , both of which were prohibited by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant company also argued that the fines , which could be likened to criminal convictions within the meaning of LAW , should have been imposed by a court .

On DATE the Director of Revenue rejected the complaint , stating that the tax concerned was not comparable to a value - added tax and did not hinder the free movement of goods , in so far as it applied to sales made either in GPE or in any other ORG member ORG . ORG also pointed out that the ORG , in its GPE v. GPE judgment ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) had acknowledged that the system of administrative penalties was compatible with LAW , provided that their application was subject to court supervision .

On DATE the applicant company brought an action before ORG seeking exemption from the supplementary tax on works of art demanded of it for DATE and from the related penalties , based on the same grounds as its earlier complaint .

By a judgment of DATE , the court rejected the action . Concerning the conformity of the tax penalty with LAW , it pointed out that the courts responsible for tax matters had full power of review over the facts concerned and their classification by the authorities , and decided in each case , in the light of the results of that review , either to uphold or apply the tax penalty effectively incurred in the amount provided for by law , without being able to adjust it to the circumstances of the particular case , or , if they considered that the authorities had not established that the infringements of LAW had been made out , not to fine the taxpayer . The court accordingly deemed that LAW did not necessarily require the tax court to have the power to adjust the amount of the penalty to suit the particular circumstances of the case .

On DATE the applicant company lodged an appeal with ORG .

During those proceedings , order no . CARDINAL of DATE reduced the fine provided for LAW ( which became LAW DATE ) from PERCENT of the unpaid tax .

On DATE the tax authorities reduced the fine by ORG MONEY , and on DATE the additional tax on works of art demanded was reduced by ORG because of a mistake in the calculation .

The applicant company used the same arguments before ORG as it had before ORG .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG , having taken note of the reductions and ruled that there was no need for it to take those amounts into account , upheld the judgment on the whole but reduced the price the tax authorities had placed on CARDINAL work acquired by the applicant company . After careful consideration it rejected the applicant company ’s formal and substantive arguments that the tax was at variance with Community law , for example , or that it should not have been applied to the acquisition of certain works . The court also rejected the argument under LAW concerning the fine , for similar reasons to those given by the lower court , pointing out that ORG had full jurisdiction as required by LAW , which did not require the court to be able to lower the rate of a fine when the legislation provided for a single rate .

The applicant company appealed to the ORG d’Etat on points of law , alleging , inter alia , that the tax was incompatible with Community law and the fine incompatible with LAW , in so far as the court had no power to adjust it to reflect the seriousness of the taxpayer ’s conduct according to a statutory scale .

By a judgment of DATE , the ORG d’Etat rejected the appeal . Regarding the fine , it held as follows :

“ Considering ... on the one hand that , in order to make the rate of the fine proportionate to the offence , the order of DATE fixed it at PERCENT , and on the other hand that the tax court , having exercised its full power of review over the facts of the appeal and the classification adopted by the authorities , decides , in each case , depending on the results of that review , either to uphold the surcharge imposed by the authorities or to cancel it if it considers that the taxpayer has not infringed the rules applicable to works of art , and that it therefore has full jurisdiction as required under the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ... , which do not imply that even where the legislation provides for a single rate for the fine in question the court must be able to adjust it and apply a rate lower than that provided for by law ; accordingly , in not setting aside the fine provided for in LAW in the present case , the court did not commit any error of law . ”

On DATE the applicant company lodged CARDINAL appeals with the PERSON d’Etat challenging the interpretation by the Minister of ORG ( “ the Minister ” ) of the tax law found in the basic administrative documents ( in its successive versions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) , whereby the Minister defined the base of the tax on works of art as their selling price , including commission .

NORP The applicant company pointed out that ORG alone had the power to create a tax and determine the key details of its establishment and collection , and submitted that the Minister , in whose name the administrative documents concerned had been drafted , had overstepped his powers .

During the proceedings the tax was completely rewritten and the numbering changed , by LAW , adopted on DATE and effective from DATE . On that occasion the provisions concerning the base of the tax , previously found in the administrative documents , and those concerning the collection of the tax , previously found in the regulatory part of LAW , were incorporated in the legislative part of the LAW .

By a judgment of DATE , the ORG d’Etat joined the appeals and rejected them . It considered , based on the impugned provisions of LAW , that the law “ implicitly but necessarily ” intended to base the tax on works of art on the selling price and , for want of further clarification on this point , the selling price taken into account as a base for the tax should be understood to include all the costs borne by the purchaser . That being so , the PERSON d’Etat considered that , in basing the tax on works of art on the selling price including commission , the Minister had correctly interpreted the impugned provisions and had not laid down any new rules or overstepped his authority .

On DATE the applicant company lodged CARDINAL appeals with the PERSON d’Etat to set aside the decisions by which the Prime Minister had implicitly rejected its requests to revoke the regulations governing the means of collecting the tax on works of art , issued pursuant to LAW introducing the said tax . It contended that the provisions in question were of a legal nature and had been introduced by an authority which had no law - making powers . It further alleged that the legal provisions concerning the persons to whom the tax applied were confusing and unclear , in breach of the principle , enshrined in LAW , that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG d’Etat joined the appeals and rejected them . It considered that the regulatory authority had simply laid down the procedure for collecting the tax , in conformity with the provisions of LAW of DATE , and had not overstepped its authority or the terms of its remit . It further considered that the argument concerning the principle , enshrined in LAW , that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty could not be relied on in favour of setting aside the refusal to revoke the regulations in issue .

The fixed - rate tax on works of art is a particular way of taxing capital gains . It was introduced by LAW on the taxation of capital gains and the creation of a fixed - rate tax on precious metals , jewellery , works of art , ORG items and antiques . Until DATE it was embodied in ORG CARDINAL bis A to CARDINAL bis E of LAW , then until DATE in Articles CARDINAL V bis to CARDINAL V sexies of the same code . The relevant parts of those Articles read as follows .

“ I. Subject to the specific provisions applicable to business profits , ... the sale of jewellery , works of art , collectors’ items and antiques shall be subject to a PERCENT tax when the value exceeds FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL ; when the price is between FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the base of the tax shall be reduced by a sum equal to the difference between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the said price .

These provisions shall also be applicable to sales made in another member ORG of ORG .

“ The tax provided for in LAW bis shall be borne by the seller . It shall be paid by the intermediary taking part in the transaction or , failing that , by the buyer , within DATE and under the same guarantees as turnover tax . However , where the sale is made in another member ORG of ORG , the tax shall be paid by the seller , under the same conditions .

The tax shall not be levied where the seller is a professional dealer in the goods concerned . ”

“ The seller of jewellery or other objects mentioned in the second line of paragraph I of LAW bis may opt , by a declaration made at the time of the sale , for the scheme defined in LAW CARDINAL T provided that he is able to show proof of the date and price of acquisition . The conditions of this option are fixed by decree of the ORG d’Etat . ”

LAW DATE ( Law no . DATE of DATE ) , which took effect on DATE , changed those provisions . Among other things it covered the person legally liable for the tax on works of art , the base on which the tax was assessed and how it was collected . Henceforth , Article CARDINAL ORG paragraph CARDINAL of the same code reads :

“ The tax shall be borne by the seller or the exporter . It shall be paid by the intermediary resident in GPE for tax purposes who takes part in the transaction and under his responsibility or , failing that , by the seller or the exporter .

Failure to pay the tax on works of art gives rise to a fine . At the material time LAW ( which became LAW octies in DATE ) provided :

“ Breaches of Articles CARDINAL V bis to CARDINAL V sexies shall give rise to a tax penalty equal to the unpaid tax and collected in the same manner as turnover tax . ”

Order no . DATE on the simplification of taxation and the harmonisation and adjustment of penalties reduced the fine provided for in LAW octies from PERCENT of the unpaid tax . LAW became LAW .

Traditionally a distinction is made between a full administrative - law action ( before an administrative court having full jurisdiction ) and an appeal for judicial review seeking to have an administrative decision set aside . In the latter type of appeal the power of the administrative court is limited : it can only set aside a decision retroactively because of a legal flaw , without ruling on the merits . In a full administrative - law action , on the other hand , the powers of the administrative court are much broader : not only can it set aside or uphold an administrative decision , but it can also vary it , replace it with its own decision and rule on the rights of the interested party . It can also order the administrative authorities to pay damages . What is more , when the administrative court has full jurisdiction it examines the lawfulness of the decision referred to it in the light of the legal and factual circumstances at the time when it gives judgment ( not , as in appeals for judicial review , at the time when the administrative decision was taken ) .

Full administrative - law actions include appeals to establish the liability of the ORG in contractual or extra - contractual matters , actions concerning fiscal or electoral matters ( municipal and district ) , appeals against administrative sanctions , and various other actions .

In the realm of tax litigation , the administrative courts have jurisdiction in matters concerning direct taxes and turnover tax , while cases concerning indirect taxes are a matter for the ordinary courts . As a result , the administrative courts have the power to cancel the taxes and related penalties demanded by the tax authorities and can also fix the sum to be paid , within the limits of the applicable legal provisions . As regards penalties , the administrative courts can replace a higher rate with a lower rate when several rates are applicable depending on the taxpayer ’s conduct .

On the question of the power of the courts to vary the rate of tax penalties , ORG have adopted different solutions .

Where fines are imposed in the event of late payment of the differential tax on motor vehicles ( LAW repealed on DATE ) , ORG , in a judgment of DATE , declined to apply the Article in question as being contrary to LAW in so far as “ it did not provide for a full administrative - law action against the administrative decision enabling the court to rule on the principle and the amount of the fine ” ( PERSON . com . , PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL ) .

That approach was subsequently confirmed ( PERSON . com . , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , no . CARDINAL ; PERSON . com . , DATE , PERSON , Bulletin CARDINAL IV no . CARDINAL ) . In the judgment of DATE mentioned above , ORG held as follows :

“ LAW ... is incompatible with LAW ... only in so far as the court before which proceedings are brought challenging a penalty imposed on a taxpayer by the tax authorities can not rule on the principle and size of the fine , so the task of the court , before which the [ individual concerned ] argued that he had paid the tax immediately after being ordered to pay it , was to assess the proportionality of the penalty with the taxpayer ’s conduct ... ”

ORG explained in a judgment of DATE ( PERSON . com . , PERSON , no . DATE ) , concerning PERCENT supplementary tax demand for failure to declare a gift :

“ LAW ... opens up the right to appeal to a court having full jurisdiction to ensure that a fine imposed by the tax authorities is proportionate to the taxpayer’ , and ... the trial court can exercise the power thus vested in it only if the party challenging the fine enables it to assess the principle and the amount of the fine ... ”

The ORG d’Etat initially ruled on Articles DATE and DATE of LAW , which provide for different penalties depending on the taxpayer ’s conduct and its classification in law ( LAW , as it stood at the material time , provided for a PERCENT increase in the fine if the taxpayer had acted in bad faith , and PERCENT if there was deception ) .

In an opinion of DATE concerning Article DATE , the ORG d’Etat stated :

“ [ T]he law ... making penalties proportionate to the taxpayer ’s conduct provided for the surcharge applied to vary according to the legal classification given to the conduct concerned . The relevant court , having fully exercised its power of review of the authorities’ classification of that conduct , must apply the relevant surcharge rate provided for by law , without being able to vary it in consideration of the seriousness of the offence committed by the taxpayer . ” ( ORG , PERSON opinion , Revue de jurisprudence fiscale ( ORG ) DATE , no . CARDINAL )

In another case concerning the possibility of varying the penalties provided for in DATE , the ORG d’Etat gave the following explanation in an opinion of CARDINAL DATE :

“ [ T]he relevant court , having fully exercised its power of review of the facts and the authorities’ classification thereof , decides in each case , depending on the results of the review , either to uphold or apply the surcharge effectively incurred at the rate provided for by law , without being able to vary it in consideration of the seriousness of the offence committed by the taxpayer , or , if it considers that the authorities have failed to establish that the taxpayer is guilty of deception or of acting in bad faith , only to charge interest for late payment . The provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ... do not oblige it to proceed otherwise ... ” ( CE , PERSON opinion , ORG , no . CARDINAL ; see also ORG , DATE , NORP Paolo Nancéienne , ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , no . DATE )

The PERSON d’Etat used the same reasoning in respect of Article CARDINAL of LAW , which provides for different rates of fine depending on the seriousness of the taxpayer ’s failure to comply with the obligations concerning tax returns ( ORG , DATE , ORG , ORG , no . CARDINAL , and CE , DATE , PERSON , RJF DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

Subsequently , the ORG d’Etat transposed this approach to penalties which , although they appeared in a separate LAW , were part of a series of repressive measures that included penalties provided for in other Articles of the LAW ( see , for example , regarding the PERCENT fine provided for in DATE ( now LAW A CARDINAL ) of the LAW in the event of failure to declare an immediately deductible value - added tax , ORG , CARDINAL DATE , ORG , RJF DATE , no . CARDINAL ; regarding the PERCENT fine provided for in DATE ) of the LAW in the event of concealment or falsification of the identity or address of suppliers or clients , ORG , DATE , PERSON , ORG , no . CARDINAL , and for the PERCENT fine ( reduced to PERCENT in DATE ) imposed under LAW for obstructing a tax assessment , ORG , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , PERSON DATE no . CARDINAL ) .

In CARDINAL decisions of CARDINAL DATE , following CARDINAL preliminary questions of constitutionality concerning PERCENT tax surcharge provided for in DATE of LAW ( for , respectively , non - declaration after receipt of notice and bad faith on the part of the taxpayer ) , ORG declared the ORG in question to be in conformity with the LAW , in the following similar terms in both decisions :

“ The principle of the individualisation of penalties that results [ from LAW ] implies that a tax surcharge , when imposed as a penalty , may be applied only if the authorities , subject to judicial review , expressly ordered it taking into account the particular circumstances in each case ; it can not , however , prevent the law from laying down rules to ensure the effective repression of offences ;

The impugned provision instituted a financial penalty the nature of which is directly linked to that of the offence ; the law itself adjusted the penalties according to the seriousness of the offence ; the court decides in each case , having fully exercised its power of review of the facts and the authorities’ classification thereof , either to maintain ... the surcharge effectively incurred at the rate provided for by law , or to replace it by another rate provided for in the other provisions of the Article ... if it considers it legally justified [ ( LAW ) ] , or , if it considers that the authorities have failed to establish that the taxpayer is guilty of deception or of acting in bad faith , it may decide only to charge interest for late payment [ ( LAW ) ] ; it thus has the power to make the penalties proportionate to the taxpayer ’s conduct ; the rate of PERCENT is not manifestly disproportionate ... ”


ORG The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE . He is a precious - stone cutter by profession and resides at GPE , GPE .

ORG When , in DATE , ORG decided to introduce taxation of NORP nationals working on NORP bases in GPE , a number of the persons affected ( which persons did not include Mr PERSON ) challenged that decision before ORG of GPE ( Grønlands Landsret ) . They argued that the decision was illegal on the grounds , inter alia , that they did not have the right to vote in local elections in GPE and did not receive any benefits from the GPE authorities . The case was heard in the High Court sitting with CARDINAL professional judge and CARDINAL lay judges ; the latter were both employed by ORG . In its judgment of DATE , which is not the object of the present complaint , the ORG unanimously found for ORG ; this judgment was subsequently upheld by ORG for GPE ( PERSON ) on DATE ( " the DATE tax case " ) .

ORG After learning about the judgment of ORG of GPE , the applicant wrote an article on the judgment , published in a magazine called " PERSON " in DATE .

In the article he expressed his opinion that the CARDINAL lay judges were disqualified under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; he also questioned their ability and power to decide impartially in a case brought against their employer . The article included the following passage ( translation from NORP ) :

" Most of ORG members could ... afford the time to watch that the CARDINAL GPE lay judges - who are by the way both employed directly by ORG , as director of a museum and as consultant in urban housing affairs - did their duty , and this they did . The vote was CARDINAL [ cf paragraph CARDINAL below ] in favour of ORG and with such a bench of judges it does not require much imagination to guess who voted how . "

ORG The professional High Court judge considered that these remarks on the CARDINAL lay judges were of a kind which might damage their reputation in the eyes of the public and hence generally impair confidence in the legal system . As head of the GPE judiciary , he consequently applied to the GPE Chief of Police , asking for a criminal investigation to be instituted . The applicant was subsequently charged with defamation of character within the meaning of Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of GPE Code ( Kriminalloven for Grønland ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) before ORG ) of GPE .

ORG After an initial question of venue had been settled , the case was heard by ORG on DATE . The applicant confirmed that he had written the article in question but he maintained that the lay judges had been barred , by virtue of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , from adjudicating in the tax case and that the defamation case brought against him violated LAW , which guarantees freedom of expression ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In its judgment of DATE , ORG stated ( translation from NORP ) :

" The ORG does not find that the validity of the High Court judgment of CARDINAL DATE should be examined in the present proceedings . The sole question is whether the accused , through the contents of his article , has insulted CARDINAL of the judges sitting in that case .

The ORG finds that in the particular paragraph of the article in question the accused used such words that the CARDINAL judges concerned may rightly consider their honour offended .

The right invoked by the accused to freedom of expression in accordance with LAW is not found to be violated since the accused is entitled , without prior censorship , to state his views , although he may still be held responsible in the courts .

Accordingly , the ORG finds the accused guilty of having violated LAW of GPE Code since it does not find that the accused has , in accordance with LAW of the same Code , proved the justification of his choice of words in the article in question . "

ORG imposed a fine of CARDINAL NORP Crowns on the applicant .

ORG The applicant appealed to ORG for GPE , but the proceedings were transferred to ORG of GPE as this court was considered the proper court of appeal . When ORG heard the case , the usual professional judge , who was disqualified as he had been responsible for initiating the proceedings , was replaced by CARDINAL of his deputies ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) .

ORG In its judgment of DATE upholding ORG judgment , the High Court emphasised that the applicant had misunderstood the votes in the DATE tax case : it was only with regard to the reasoning that there was a dissent ; with regard to the conclusion all CARDINAL judges had decided in favour of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As to the charge brought against the applicant , the ORG stated inter alia ( translation from NORP ) :

" Like ORG , ORG agrees with the prosecution that the words of the article to the effect that the CARDINAL GPE lay judges did their duty - namely their duty as employees of ORG to rule in its favour - represent a serious accusation which is likely to lower them in public esteem . Proof of the accusation has not been adduced , something which , moreover , would not have been possible since it can not be excluded that they would have reached the same result had they not been employed by ORG . The accused will hereafter be considered guilty of having violated LAW .

Finally , concerning the question of the competence of the CARDINAL lay judges , ORG agrees with the accused that they , being employed in leading positions by the defendant party , ought - as was pointed out by the defence and notwithstanding the specific difficulties in GPE of observing strict rules in regard to competence - to have considered themselves as disqualified and thus refrained from participating in the case , and that he was correct in drawing attention to this .

Having regard , on the CARDINAL hand , to the seriousness of the accusation and the information now available about the accused ’s economic situation - which would give grounds for a considerable increase of the fine imposed - and , on the other hand , to the appropriateness of drawing attention to the failure to observe reasonable rules of competence which occurred , the ORG finds that the fine imposed should be confirmed . "

ORG The applicant subsequently asked ORG for leave to appeal to ORG ( Højesteret ) , but his request was rejected on DATE .

ORG According to LAW ( PERSON ) , the administration of justice shall remain separated from the Executive and the rules in this respect shall be laid down by law .

Freedom of expression is protected by LAW , which provides ( translation from NORP ) :

" Everyone shall be entitled to make public his views in print , in writing and in speech , with the proviso that he may be held responsible in a court of justice . Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced . "

ORG The crime of defamation of character is defined in LAW ( Kriminalloven for Grønland ) , which provides ( translation from NORP ) :

[ ( CARDINAL ) ] " Any person shall be liable to punishment for defamation of character if he degrades the honour of another person through insulting words or acts or if he makes or disseminates an accusation which is likely to damage the esteem in which the insulted party is held by his fellow citizens or which may in other ways damage his relationship with other people .

( CARDINAL ) However , no person may be convicted on the ground of an accusation which is proved true or has been made in good faith , if the perpetrator was under an obligation to make the statement or acted in order to safeguard , justifiably , an evident public interest or his own or another ’s interest .

( CARDINAL ) A person making an accusation supported by evidence may nevertheless be convicted if the wording of the accusation is unduly insulting or if the perpetrator had no reasonable cause to make the accusation .

( CARDINAL ) Whenever a defamatory accusation is unwarranted , the insulted party may call for a statement to this effect to be included in the conclusions of the judgment . "

ORG The administration of justice in GPE is much influenced by the special conditions obtaining there : time - honoured traditions , the country ’s enormous size and widely scattered settlements . The legal system consists of CARDINAL levels of courts : the district courts , which are the courts of first instance , and ORG , which is the court of appeal but can also hear certain cases at first instance . Depending on whether ORG decides a case on appeal or at first instance , its judgment can be appealed either to ORG , if leave to appeal is granted by ORG , or to ORG for GPE .

ORG is presided over by the High Court Judge or CARDINAL of his deputies , all of whom are legally trained . ORG also includes CARDINAL lay judges , appointed for DATE at a time by ORG ( ORG ) upon nomination by the ORG Judge . The district courts are composed of CARDINAL lay judges appointed for DATE : the president , appointed by the High Court Judge , and CARDINAL other lay judges appointed by the local authorities upon nomination by the High Court Judge .

The lay judges discharge their duties as a civic obligation alongside their ordinary work . Any person entitled to vote in local elections may be appointed to act as a lay judge . Only if it is especially onerous for a lay judge to discharge his duties , may he be relieved of his appointment by the High Court Judge .

It is a fundamental principle of NORP as well as GPE administration of justice that a judge must be impartial and be guided solely by the law and the evidence adduced . This principle applies to all persons exercising judicial power , that is both professional judges and lay judges .

ORG The rules relating to disqualification of judges are laid down in ORG . However this LAW is worded in general terms and does not explicitly mention an employee / employer relationship between judges and parties as a ground for disqualification .

ORG A decision given by a judge under the influence of considerations other than those deriving from the law or the evidence adduced , for example in deference to his employers , would be a manifest breach of duty for which sanctions would be available either under ORG ( disciplinary punishment ) or LAW ( abuse of public authority ) .