CASE OF SIDABRAS AND DŽIAUTAS v. LITHUANIA

Violation of Art. 14+8;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;No violation of Art. 10 or 14+10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

NORP In DATE the first applicant graduated from ORG , qualifying as a certified sports instructor .

DATE he was an employee of the NORP branch of ORG ( the ORG ) . After GPE declared its independence in DATE , he found employment as a tax inspector at the Inland Revenue .

On DATE CARDINAL authorities – ORG and ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People – jointly concluded that the first applicant was subject to the restrictions provided under LAW on the evaluation of ORG ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG ) and the present activities of former permanent employees of the organisation ( “ the LAW ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The conclusion confirmed that the first applicant had the status of a “ former ORG officer ” ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . On DATE the first applicant was dismissed from ORG on the basis of that conclusion .

The first applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities , claiming that he had been engaged only in counterintelligence and ideology work while employed by the ORG , and that he had not been involved in the violation of individual rights by that organisation . He argued that his dismissal under LAW and the resultant inability to find employment were therefore unlawful .

On DATE ORG found that the conclusion of CARDINAL DATE had been substantiated and that the first applicant was subject to the restrictions provided under LAW . In this respect , the court held that the applicant had the status of a “ former ORG officer ” within the meaning of LAW , since he had occupied CARDINAL of the positions mentioned in the list of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal . It found that he had not occupied a ORG position dealing only with criminal investigations and could not therefore benefit from the exceptions listed under LAW .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the second applicant graduated from ORG as a qualified lawyer .

From DATE he worked as a prosecutor at ORG , investigating primarily cases of organised crime and corruption .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People jointly concluded that from DATE the second applicant had been an employee of the NORP branch of the ORG , that he had the status of a “ former ORG officer ” and that he was thereby subject to the restrictions provided under LAW . On DATE the second applicant was dismissed from his job at ORG on the basis of that conclusion .

The second applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities and ORG . He claimed that from DATE he had merely studied at a special ORG school in GPE and that from DATE to DATE he had worked in the ORG as an informer for the NORP security intelligence authorities and should therefore be entitled to benefit from the exceptions under LAW . He claimed that his dismissal under LAW and his resultant inability to find employment were unlawful .

On DATE ORG allowed the second applicant ’s claim , quashed the conclusion of CARDINAL DATE and ordered him to be reinstated . The court found that the period of the second applicant ’s studies at the ORG school from DATE was not to be taken into account for the purposes of MONEY , that he had worked in the ORG for a period of DATE in DATE , that he had not occupied a ORG position dealing with political investigations and that , in any event , he had been a secret informer for the NORP authorities . The court concluded that the exceptions under LAW applied to the second applicant and that his dismissal had therefore been unlawful .

Following an appeal by the security intelligence authorities , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE . It held that , although the first - instance court had properly found that the second applicant had worked at the ORG for DATE , it had not been established that he had worked there as a secret informer for the NORP authorities . Accordingly , he could not benefit from the exceptions under LAW .

The second applicant appealed against ORG judgment . By a decision of DATE , the President of ORG allowed the appeal . However , by a final decision of DATE , the full ORG refused to examine the appeal and discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction .

The PERSON on the evaluation of ORG ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG ) and the present activities of former permanent employees of the organisation ( ORG dėl SSRS valstybės saugumo komiteto ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG ) vertinimo ir šios organizacijos kadrinių darbuotojų dabartinės veiklos – “ the LAW ” ) was enacted on DATE by the LAW ( the NORP parliament ) and promulgated by the President of the Republic . The KGB Act reads as follows :

“ ORG ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG – hereinafter ‘ the SSC’ ) is recognised as a criminal organisation which was responsible for war crimes , genocide , repression , terror and political persecution in the territory of GPE when occupied by the GPE . ”

“ For DATE from the date of entry into force of this LAW , former employees of the ORG may not work as public officials or civil servants in government , local or defence authorities , ORG , the police , the prosecution , courts or diplomatic service , customs , ORG supervisory bodies and other authorities monitoring public institutions , as lawyers or notaries , as employees of banks and other credit institutions , on strategic economic projects , in security companies ( structures ) , in other companies ( structures ) providing detective services , in communications systems , or in the educational system as teachers , educators or heads of institutions [ ; ] nor may they perform a job requiring the carrying of a weapon . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The restrictions provided for in section CARDINAL shall not be applied to former permanent employees of the ORG who , while working at the ORG , investigated only criminal cases and who discontinued their work at the ORG not later than DATE .

( CARDINAL ) ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People and ORG may [ recommend by ] a reasoned application that no restrictions under this law be applied to former permanent employees of the ORG who , within DATE of the entry into force of this PERSON , report to ORG and disclose all information in their possession ... about their former work at the ORG and their current relations with former ORG employees and agents . A decision in this respect shall be taken by a commission of CARDINAL persons set up by the President of the Republic . No employees of ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People or ORG may be appointed to the commission . The commission ’s rules shall be confirmed by the President of the Republic . ”

“ The procedure for implementation of the Act shall be governed by [ a special law ] . ”

“ This Act shall come into force on DATE . ”

Following the examination by ORG of the compatibility of LAW with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on CARDINAL DATE section CARDINAL of LAW was amended to the effect that even those individuals who had worked for the ORG after CARDINAL DATE could be eligible for the exceptions under LAW .

On DATE a separate law on the implementation of LAW was enacted . Under that law , ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People and ORG were empowered to reach a conclusion on an individual ’s status as a “ former permanent employee of the ORG ” ( “ former ORG officer ” ) for the purposes of LAW .

On DATE the Government adopted a list ( “ the list ” ) of positions in various branches of the ORG on NORP territory attesting to a person ’s status as a “ former ORG officer ” for the purposes of LAW . A total of CARDINAL different positions were listed in this respect .

On DATE ORG examined the issue of LAW compatibility with LAW . ORG held in particular that LAW had been passed in order to carry out “ security screening ” measures on former ORG officers , who were deemed to be lacking in loyalty to ORG . ORG decided that the prohibition on former ORG officers occupying public posts was compatible with LAW . It further ruled that the statutory ban on the holding by former ORG officers of jobs in various branches of the private sector was compatible with the constitutional principle of a free choice of profession in that the ORG was entitled to lay down specific requirements for persons applying for work in the most important economic sectors in order to ensure the protection of national security and proper functioning of the educational and financial systems . ORG also held that the restrictions under LAW did not amount to a criminal charge against former ORG officers .

While LAW does not specifically guarantee a right of access to a court to contest the security intelligence authorities’ conclusion , it was recognised by the domestic courts that , as a matter of practice , a dismissal from employment in the public service on the basis of that conclusion gave rise to an administrative court action ( and a further appeal ) under the general procedure governing industrial disputes and alleged breaches of personal rights by the public authorities , under LAW , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW , LAW and LAW as in force at the material time ) .

Restrictions have been imposed in many post - communist countries with a view to screening the employment of former security agents or active collaborators in the former regimes . In this connection , international human rights bodies have at times found fault with such legislation where it has lacked precision or proportionality , and have characterised it as discrimination in employment or the exercise of a profession on the basis of political opinion ( see below ) . The possibility of appealing to the courts has been considered a significant safeguard , although not sufficient in itself to rectify shortcomings in the legislation .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to work , the Parties undertake :

NORP to protect effectively the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon[. ] ”

This provision , retained word for word in the revised Charter of DATE ( which came into force with regard to GPE on DATE ) , has been consistently interpreted by ORG ) as establishing a right not to be discriminated against in employment . The non - discrimination guarantee is stipulated in Article E of the revised LAW in the following terms :

“ The enjoyment of the rights set forth in this LAW shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other opinion , national extraction or social origin , health , association with a national minority , birth or other status . ”

The question of the dismissal of public servants on account of their activities under totalitarian regimes has been addressed in the light of these provisions , at least as regards GPE . In its most recent examination of GPE ’s compliance with LAW ( published in DATE ) , the ORG took note of the provisions of the reunification treaty that allow for the dismissal of public servants on the basis of their activities on behalf of the security services of GPE . It concluded that GPE was not complying with its obligations . This was expanded upon in the following terms :

“ The ORG observes that there is no precise definition of the functions from which individuals can be excluded , either in the form of a refusal to recruit or a dismissal , on the grounds of previous political activities or activities within the former GPE institutions competent in security matters .

The ORG has examined the conformity of these provisions in the light of LAW . Under this provision , restriction of a right enshrined in the LAW is permitted if it is prescribed by law , is necessary in a democratic society and serves one of the purposes listed in the LAW . Whilst recognising that the provisions were prescribed by law within the meaning of LAW of the purposes listed therein , namely the protection of national security , the ORG considered that they were not necessary within the meaning of LAW in that they did not apply solely to services which had responsibilities in the fields of law and order and national security or to functions involving such responsibilities . ”

The ORG adopted its conclusions in regard to GPE ’s implementation of the revised LAW on DATE . They will be made public at a later date .

ORG ( ORG ) has also adopted a number of relevant international legal instruments . The most pertinent text is ORG no . CARDINAL on ORG ) of DATE . In its DATE ORG , ORG on ORG ( ORG ) restated its interpretation of Convention no . CARDINAL , drawing upon examples taken from national law . Regarding GPE , the ORG ’s position was the following ( § CARDINAL ) :

“ The ORG does not accept the argument that in cases in which persons had been accused of having carried out political activities in the former GPE , the more the person had , by the assumption of certain functions , identified himself or herself with that unjust regime , the more incriminated he or she was , and the less reasonable it was that this person hold a position in the current administration . ”

More recently , however , the ORG has expressed satisfaction with the NORP ORG observance of the principle of proportionality in cases where civil servants challenge their dismissal ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the Individual Observation to GPE under Convention no . CARDINAL in DATE ) .

A DATE survey identifies comparable provisions in the domestic law of a number of other GPE .

In GPE , section QUANTITY of the Preceding and Concluding Provisions of the Banks and LAW of DATE excluded persons who had served the previous regime in certain capacities from employment in banks . ORG ruled in DATE that this provision was in violation of the LAW and of ORG no . CARDINAL .

In the former GPE , the so - called LAW was passed in DATE , preventing persons who had served the previous regime in a number of capacities from taking up employment in the civil service or parts of the private sector . This legislation was declared unconstitutional by ORG in DATE , which further found it to be incompatible with Convention no . CARDINAL . However , it remained in force in GPE , while the ORG urged the NORP authorities to have due regard to the principle of proportionality in the application of the Act .

In GPE , ORG of DATE and LAW of DATE prohibit the employment of persons who worked for or with the ORG . In DATE the ORG expressed its dissatisfaction with the above texts in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recalls that requirements of a political nature can be set for a particular job , but to ensure that they are not contrary to the LAW , they should be limited to the characteristics of a particular post and be in proportion to its labour requirements . The ORG notes that the above - established exclusions by the provisions under examination apply broadly to the entire civil service and police rather than to specific jobs , functions or tasks . The ORG is concerned that these provisions appear to go beyond justifiable exclusions in respect of a particular job based on its inherent requirements as provided for LAW . The ORG recalls that for measures not to be deemed discriminatory under LAW , they must be measures affecting an individual on account of activities he or she is justifiably suspected or proved to be engaged in which are prejudicial to the security of the ORG . LAW does not exclude from the definition of discrimination measures taken by reason of membership of a particular group or community . ORG also notes that in cases where persons are deemed to be justifiably suspected of or engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of the ORG , the individual concerned shall have the right to appeal to a competent body in accordance with national practice .

In the light of the above , the ORG considers the exclusions from being a candidate for any civil service position and from being employed by the police are not sufficiently well defined and delimited to ensure that they do not become discrimination in employment and occupation based on political opinion ... ”


Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible)

Mr Civet , a NORP national , was born in DATE and is currently in custody at FAC .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant ’s daughters , PERSON GPE ( née Civet ) , who was born in DATE , went to the police station with her mother , PERSON , to complain that her father had raped her on several occasions . She stated that Mr Civet had sexually abused her a number of times at the family home , while her mother was out , DATE .

On DATE another daughter of the applicant , Miss PERSON , born in DATE , also reported her father to the police for raping her a number of times at the family home , while her mother was out , when she was DATE .

On DATE Mr Civet was placed under judicial investigation on charges of rape of a minor by a legitimate ascendant ( ascendant légitime ) . The applicant was immediately charged and remanded in custody by an investigating judge of the FAC tribunal de grande instance .

The applicant went on hunger strike for the first time , for DATE until DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge informed the parties that the investigation appeared to be complete and that the case file would be sent to the public prosecutor for his views on whether a prosecution should be brought . However , the investigation continued after that date as the judge had granted an application by Mr Civet for supplementary investigative measures .

On DATE the investigating judge informed the parties again that the investigation appeared to be complete , but granted a further application by the applicant for supplementary investigative measures .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge informed the parties for the third time that the investigation appeared to be complete . The case file was sent to the public prosecutor on DATE for his views on whether a prosecution should be brought .

On DATE the investigating judge made an order for the documents to be forwarded to the public prosecutor at ORG , in order to conclude the investigation .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG committed the applicant for trial at ORG on several counts of rape of a minor by a legitimate ascendant . An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge dismissed an application for release submitted on DATE . In a judgment of DATE ORG of ORG upheld the order dismissing his application .

The applicant appealed to ORG on points of law , but his appeal was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he had failed to lodge his grounds of appeal within the statutory time .

On DATE the investigating judge dismissed a further application for release , submitted on DATE , on the following grounds :

“ [ The applicant ’s ] CARDINAL daughters have made grave allegations against him of sex offences classified as ‘ serious crimes’ ( de nature criminelle ) . Offences of this kind , committed against girls under DATE by a legitimate ascendant , seriously prejudice public order . There is a risk that the victims and their mother will be intimidated . The applicant has numerous previous convictions . ”

ORG of ORG upheld that order in a judgment of DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge refused a further application for release , submitted on DATE , stating :

“ The charges are serious . These offences classified as ‘ serious crimes’ are , by definition , seriously prejudicial to public order in that they inflict lasting damage on the physical , mental and psychological well - being of children . The applicant is known for his intemperance and violence and has numerous previous convictions . ”

The applicant appealed . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge extended the pre - trial detention for DATE on the same grounds as those set out in the order of CARDINAL DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge dismissed an application for release submitted by the applicant on DATE . The applicant appealed .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG upheld the order on the grounds that , despite the applicant 's denials ,

“ there is serious and strong evidence that he committed the rapes with which he has been charged . Given his attitude to the charges , there is a risk that , if released , he would be tempted to pressurise the victims , and indeed his wife , into retracting their statements . These violent crimes , even if not widely publicised , have caused serious prejudice to public order as far as the protection of children ’s physical and psychological well - being is concerned . This prejudice , temporarily contained by remanding the applicant in custody , would recur if he were to be released , particularly as the investigation is almost complete . [ The applicant ] , who is unemployed and has several previous convictions ( for theft , handling stolen goods , misappropriation , driving while under the influence of alcohol and a hit - and - run offence ) , is described as a violent individual who presents a danger both to himself and others , particularly when under the influence of alcohol , and thus can not provide sufficient guarantees that he will appear for trial . It therefore appears necessary to keep the accused in detention on remand in order to prevent him from reoffending , to protect public order from the consequences of these offences and to ensure that he remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities ... ”

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge dismissed a further application for release , submitted on DATE . Mr Civet appealed .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG upheld the order for the same reasons as those contained in its judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG for the département of the LOC convicted the applicant of the offences charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The relevant provisions of LAW on pre - trial detention applicable at the material time are the following :

“ In cases involving serious crimes ( matière criminelle ) and other major offences ( matière correctionnelle ) , where the possible sentence is equal to or exceeds DATE imprisonment in the case of an offence discovered during or immediately after its commission ( délit flagrant ) , or CARDINAL years’ imprisonment in other cases , and if the constraints of judicial supervision are inadequate in regard to the functions set out in Article CARDINAL , detention pending trial may be ordered or continued

( CARDINAL ) where detention of the accused pending trial is the sole means of preserving evidence or material clues or of preventing either pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or victims , or collusion between accused and accomplices ;

( CARDINAL ) where such detention is necessary to protect the accused , to put an end to the offence or to prevent its repetition , to ensure that the accused remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities or to preserve public order from the disturbance caused by the offence .

Detention pending trial may also be ordered , in the circumstances set out in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL , where the accused deliberately fails to comply with the obligations imposed by judicial supervision . ”

“ Whatever the classification of the offence , an order for detention pending trial must set out the legal and factual reasons for the decision with reference to the provisions of LAW alone ; the accused shall be informed orally of the order and be given a full copy of it , receipt being acknowledged by signature in the case file … ”

“ In cases involving lesser criminal offences ( matière correctionnelle ) pre - trial detention may not exceed DATE . However , at DATE , the investigating judge may extend the detention by an order giving reasons as indicated in the first paragraph of Article CARDINAL . No extension may be ordered for DATE .

Where the accused has not previously been sentenced for a serious crime ( crime ) or other major offence ( délit ) to a non - suspended term of imprisonment exceeding DATE and where the sentence that may be passed on him does not exceed DATE , the extension of detention provided for in the preceding paragraph may be ordered only once and for a period not exceeding DATE .

In other cases the accused may not be kept in detention for DATE . However , in exceptional circumstances the investigating judge may decide at the end of that period to extend the detention , for a period not exceeding DATE , by a reasoned order made in accordance with the provisions of the first and fourth paragraphs of Article CARDINAL , his lawyer having been summoned in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of LAW . That order is renewable by means of the same procedure . Nevertheless the accused may not be kept in detention for DATE where the sentence to which he is liable does not exceed DATE .

The orders referred to in the first and second paragraphs of this Article shall be made after the public prosecutor and , if applicable , the accused or his lawyer have submitted their observations . ”

“ In cases involving serious crimes ( matière criminelle ) an accused can not be held in detention for DATE . However , the investigating judge may , at DATE , decide to prolong detention for a period not exceeding one year in a decision made in accordance with the provisions of the first and fourth paragraphs of Article CARDINAL , his lawyer having been summoned in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of LAW . That decision is renewable by means of the same procedure .

The provisions of this Article shall apply until the disposal order is made . ”

“ Whatever the classification of the offence , the accused may be released , subject or not to judicial supervision , by means of an order made by the investigating judge of his own motion after the public prosecutor has submitted his observations , provided that the accused undertakes to attend for procedural purposes whenever required to do so during the investigation and to keep the investigating judge informed of all his movements .

The public prosecutor may also apply at any time for the accused to be released . The investigating judge shall rule within DATE of such an application . ”

“ Whatever the classification of the offence , the accused or his lawyer may at any time lodge with the investigating judge an application for release , subject to his giving the undertakings referred to in DATE .

The investigating judge shall communicate the file immediately to the public prosecutor for his submissions .

The investigating judge shall take a decision , in an order setting out the legal and factual reasons for the decision with reference to the provisions of LAW , not DATE following communication of the file to the public prosecutor . However , where a decision has still to be taken on a previous application for release or on an appeal against an earlier order refusing release , the DATE period shall not start to run until the date of the decision of the investigating judge or indictment division .

Where release is granted , it may be made subject to judicial supervision .

If the investigating judge fails to give a decision within the period laid down in the third paragraph , the person concerned may apply directly to the indictment division , which after receiving ORG reasoned submissions in writing , shall give a decision within DATE of the application to it , failing which the accused shall automatically be released unless an order has been made for particulars of his application to be verified . The public prosecutor is likewise entitled to apply to the indictment division in the same eventuality . ”

“ An application for release may also be made by any accused for any reason and at any stage in the proceedings … ”

“ Any judicial authority which has to rule , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , on an application for a judicial supervision order to be discharged in whole or in part or for release shall give its decision after hearing the prosecution and the accused or his lawyer ; an accused who is not in detention and his lawyer shall be given notice by registered letter at least TIME before the date of the hearing .

The judicial authority to which the application has been made , depending on whether it is an authority of first or second instance , shall give its decision within DATE of receipt of the application . However , where on the date of receipt of the application a decision has still to be taken on a previous application for release or on an appeal against an earlier decision to refuse release , the ten- or DATE period shall not start to run until the date of the decision of the relevant judicial authority ; if no decision has been given by DATE , the judicial supervision or detention pending trial shall be terminated and the accused , unless detained for another reason , shall automatically be released .

The judicial authority ’s decision shall be enforceable immediately notwithstanding any appeal ; where the accused remains in detention , the indictment division shall give its decision within DATE of the appeal , failing which the accused , unless detained for another reason , shall automatically be released . ”

“ When DATE have elapsed since his last appearance before the investigating judge or a judge delegated by the investigating judge , an accused or his lawyer may , provided no disposal order has been made , apply for release directly to the indictment division , which shall decide as laid down in the last paragraph of Article CARDINAL . ”

“ In the event of a breach of the law , judgments of indictment divisions and judgments of the criminal courts against which no ordinary appeal lies can be set aside on an appeal on points of law to ORG lodged by the public prosecutor or by the party adversely affected , according to the distinctions made hereafter .

Such an appeal shall be lodged with ORG . ”

“ ORG , when hearing an appeal on a point of law against a judgment of the indictment division concerning pre - trial detention , shall rule within DATE of the file ’s being received at ORG , failing which the accused shall automatically be released .

The appellant or his lawyer shall , on pain of having his application dismissed , file his pleading setting out the grounds of appeal within DATE of the file ’s being received , save where exceptionally the President of ORG has decided to grant an extension of DATE . After the expiry of this time - limit , no new grounds may be raised by him and no further pleadings may be filed .

As soon as the pleading has been filed , the President of ORG shall set the case down for hearing . ”

“ Judgments of indictment divisions and judgments of trial and appeal courts against which no ordinary appeal lies and which comply with the formal requirements laid down by statute can be quashed only on grounds of a breach of the law . ”

“ Such judgments shall be declared null and void if they are not delivered by the prescribed number of judges or have been delivered by judges who have not attended all the hearings in the case . Where several hearings have been held in one and the same case , the judges who have taken part in the decision shall be presumed to have attended all of them .

Such judgments shall also be declared null and void if they have been delivered without submissions having been heard from the public prosecutor .

Subject to the exceptions laid down by law , judgments which have not been delivered , or in respect of which the proceedings have not been conducted in open court , shall also be declared null and void . ”

“ Judgments of indictment divisions and judgments against which no ordinary appeal lies shall be declared null and void if they contain no reasons or if the reasons are insufficient and do not enable ORG to exercise its power of review and to ascertain that the law has been complied with in the operative provisions .

The same rule shall apply in the event of a failure or refusal to rule either on CARDINAL or more applications by the parties or on CARDINAL or more applications by the public prosecutor . ”

“ ORG shall be able to quash a judgment without remitting it to ORG if quashing it does not entail a rehearing of the merits .

It may also , when quashing a judgment without remitting it to ORG , dispose of the case where the facts , as found and assessed by the tribunals of fact in the exercise of their exclusive jurisdiction , allow it to apply the appropriate rule of law .

ORG has acknowledged that the assessment of the facts of a case by indictment divisions is a matter falling within their exclusive jurisdiction , but verifies that they have addressed “ essential ” ( péremptoires ) grounds , including those based on LAW ( “ PERSON . PERSON . ” ) , DATE , ORG . Crim . no . CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , appeal no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL ; see also PERSON . PERSON . , DATE , appeal no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . ORG reviews the reasoning of indictment divisions in order to satisfy itself that it complies with statutory requirements , and ascertains that the reasons given by the tribunals of fact for their decisions regarding the length of pre - trial detention are adequate and consistent ( see PERSON . PERSON . , DATE and DATE , appeals nos . CARDINAL,CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ; see also PERSON . PERSON . , CARDINAL DATE , appeal no . CARDINAL ) . Where an indictment division omits to address in its judgment a pleading by an appellant to the effect that there has been a violation of LAW , ORG will find that the judgment has no legal basis and quash it ( see PERSON . PERSON . , CARDINAL DATE , appeal no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL ; and DATE , appeal no . CARDINAL,CARDINAL ; see also PERSON . PERSON . , CARDINAL DATE , appeal no . CARDINAL ) . In exercising its power of review , ORG has delivered judgments in the following terms , in particular :

“ The courts must address ‘ essential’ grounds raised in pleadings submitted to them ; all judgments must contain reasons justifying the decision reached , and giving inadequate reasons is tantamount to giving no reasons .

It appears from the judgment appealed against and the documents exhibited in the proceedings that [ C.W. ] , a NORP national extradited from GPE , was charged by the investigating judge on CARDINAL DATE with several counts of fraud and with infringing the LAW of DATE on money - lending and on DATE was ordered to be detained pending trial . An order was made on DATE extending pre - trial detention for DATE from DATE . On DATE the investigating judge ordered him to be released subject to judicial supervision and on payment , before release , of security in the amount of MONEY . MONEY of that amount was intended to ensure that he appeared for subsequent proceedings and up to a ceiling of MONEY to guarantee payment of ‘ compensation for the damage caused by the offence , the expenses incurred by the ORG and ORG ; that order was not complied with , since the defendant paid MONEY of the required security ; on DATE the investigating judge dismissed an application by [ W. ] for the judicial supervision order to be discharged in part and extended the pre - trial detention for DATE from CARDINAL DATE , ‘ subject to activation of the order for his release that was made on condition that a security in the amount of MONEY was paid in NORP ; in an order of DATE , against which the defendant appealed , the pre - trial detention was extended for a further period of DATE with effect from DATE .

In upholding that order [ extending the pre - trial detention , following non - payment of the sum set by way of security ] , ORG , after referring to the offences with which [ PERSON ] had been charged and to the fact that the order of CARDINAL DATE releasing him subject to judicial supervision had become final , stated : ‘ The discussion initiated by [ W. ] ’s lawyer of the criteria for pre - trial detention has no place here ; it is of no relevance now that the defendant ’s release has been ordered subject to judicial supervision and that his detention is being extended as a result of his own acts and therefore does not violate the rules laid down by ORG The Indictment Division added : ‘ As a subsidiary consideration , his failure to comply with the conditions accepted by him suggests that were he to be released DATE , he would not appear for trial.’

However , in reaching that decision and not addressing the pleading submitted to it , in which reliance was placed on a violation of LAW of the above - mentioned LAW , according to which everyone arrested or detained is entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial , and in failing to set out the considerations of law and of fact which , under LAW , justified extending pre - trial detention , the rules on which ( as laid down by LAW ) do not provide for any exception , ORG infringed the aforementioned provisions and principle and deprived its decision of a legal basis .

The decision must therefore be quashed . For these reasons , the ORG quashes and sets aside … ” ( PERSON . PERSON . , DATE , ORG . crim . no . CARDINAL )

“ … [ ORG ] submitted before ORG that he had been continuously detained , since being charged , for DATE and DATE , during which the only measures taken by the investigating judge had been : at DATE , to arrange a confrontation with the witnesses who had implicated him ; DATE and DATE , to instruct experts to identify the victims who had died in DATE ; and , during DATE , to take further witness statements . The length of his detention had thus been justified neither by the complexity of the case nor by his own conduct .

In upholding the order appealed against , ORG stated that despite [ ORG denials , there was strong evidence that he had committed the offences with which he was charged ; that detaining him was the sole means of ensuring until the trial that no pressure was brought to bear on witnesses and that the accused , who had no regular employment and no fixed address , appeared for trial ; and that the investigating judge ’s refusal of the application for release therefore had to be upheld , notwithstanding the length of time already spent in detention , which had been justified by the difficulties encountered by the judge in carrying out his task and especially in identifying the deceased .

But by confining itself to referring , in order to justify the length of detention , to an investigative measure carried out by an expert and omitting to address the main arguments in the pleading submitted to it , ORG infringed the principles alluded to above .

The decision must therefore be quashed . For these reasons , the ORG quashes and sets aside … ” ( PERSON . PERSON . , DATE )

“ … Regard being had to LAW , read together with LAW ,

The courts are required to address the main arguments in the pleadings submitted to them .

In dismissing [ GPE ] ’s application for release , ORG in its judgment went no further than stating that the charges of aggravated rape of which he stood accused had caused exceptional and continuing prejudice to public order and that keeping him in detention was the only means of preventing him from bringing pressure to bear on the victim or evading justice by taking refuge outside NORP territory , since judicial supervision was inadequate for that purpose .

However , in reaching that decision without addressing the defendant ’s pleading in which reliance was placed on a violation of LAW of LAW , which provides that everyone arrested or detained is entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial , ORG deprived its decision of a legal basis .

The judgment must therefore be quashed . For these reasons , and without its being necessary to examine the other grounds of appeal , the ORG quashes and sets aside … ” ( PERSON . PERSON . , CARDINAL DATE , appeal no . CARDINAL )

ORG also quashes judgments for non - compliance with statutory formalities laid down on pain of nullity ( PERSON . PERSON . , DATE , QUANTITY DATE and CARDINAL DATE , appeals ORG . CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL respectively ) and errors of law in the interpretation and application of LAW ( PERSON . PERSON . , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , appeals nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL respectively ) .

Lastly , having regard to the provisions inserted into LAW by Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , which came into force on DATE , ORG now quashes judgments of indictment divisions which do not make clear why judicial supervision would be inadequate in a particular case or do not give any special reasons why the investigation should be continued ( PERSON . PERSON . , CARDINAL and DATE , appeals nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL respectively ) or any indications of when the investigation is likely to be completed ( PERSON . PERSON . , DATE , cited above ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 34;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE pre - trial detention centre ( the “ PERSON ” ) awaiting his extradition to GPE .

The applicant has already been convicted twice in GPE for drug - related offences . The second time , in DATE , he was sentenced to DATE and DATE imprisonment . After having served part of his sentence , he was granted early release .

On DATE ORG of GPE instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had illegally purchased a psychotropic substance ( LAW of FAC ) .

On DATE the GPE authorities issued an international arrest warrant for the applicant .

On DATE the Head of ORG of GPE sent a request to ORG for the applicant to be arrested and detained pending extradition to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by officers of FAC of Simferopol .

On DATE the Zheleznodorozhnyy ORG of PERSON ( the “ ORG ” ) ordered the applicant 's detention for DATE pending his extradition to GPE .

On DATE the Deputy General Prosecutor of Belarus requested ORG of GPE to extradite the applicant to GPE . The request contained the following assurances : that the applicant would not be prosecuted for a crime committed prior to extradition without the consent of ORG of GPE ; that he would not be removed to a third country without the consent of ORG of GPE ; that he would not be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; that after the termination of the criminal proceedings or after serving his sentence , if one was imposed , the applicant would be free to leave GPE ; and that the applicant would not be prosecuted for political , racial , religious or ethnic reasons .

On DATE , during a meeting with his lawyer , the applicant signed a power of attorney for the purpose of bringing his case to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the assistant prosecutor of ORG as to whether he or his lawyers had made any claims or complaints to the ORG authorities or institutions alleging violation of his rights and freedoms . The applicant replied that his lawyer had told him to ask for an authority form and explained that he would be further defended by the ORG group of lawyers , which intended to lodge a complaint with ORG . He said that he had signed no other documents and made no complaints or petitions to any other institutions . If his lawyers had done so , he would learn about it later . TIME of this interview also mentioned that the applicant was informed of his right to remain silent under LAW .

On DATE , DATE , the President of the ORG indicated to ORG , under LAW , that they should not extradite the applicant to GPE .

On DATE ORG of Ukraine informed the Government 's Agent that no decision on the applicant 's extradition would be taken prior to the examination of his case by the ORG .

DATE ORG ordered the applicant to be detained pending his extradition to GPE , without indicating any time - limit for such detention .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE , stating that the applicant had been lawfully detained pending his extradition .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's lawyer 's request to change the preventive measure in respect of his client . The applicant appealed against this decision . By letter of DATE , the Deputy President of ORG replied to the applicant that the appellate court had previously examined his appeal concerning lawfulness of detention and would not examine the same issue again . The applicant is still in detention .

The relevant international and domestic law and practice are summarised in the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of the US ORG ( hereafter “ the Reports ” ) for DATE , released on DATE , noted with respect to GPE :

“ c. Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman , or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits such practices ; however , ORG ( ORG ) , the Special Purpose Detachment riot police ( PERSON ) , and other special forces on occasion beat detainees and demonstrators .

Police also occasionally beat individuals during arrests and in detention for organizing or participating in demonstrations or other opposition activities . On DATE , police severely beat opposition youth activist PERSON as he was arranging legal representation for a fellow youth activist , who had refused to act as a ORG informant . DATE , police kicked and hospitalized opposition activist PERSON , a minor , after detaining her for participating in a protest against the country 's fraudulent DATE CARDINAL local elections .

On DATE , PERSON police incarcerated activist PERSON in a local psychiatric hospital as she was coordinating preparations for a major Freedom Day opposition demonstration . During her DATE detention , ORG reported that she was drugged and interrogated about her connections to political prisoners PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE , police officers beat CARDINAL-year - old PERSON as she and other opposition youth activists gathered in GPE to show solidarity with the jailed political prisoners . She was treated at a local hospital for head and stomach injuries . According to credible sources , a policeman visited PERSON at the hospital and pressured her not to file a complaint against police .

On DATE , after violently dispersing a peaceful opposition demonstration on GPE 's FAC , police severely beat opposition youth leader PERSON and abandoned him unconscious on a sidewalk . PERSON was hospitalized for DATE and treated for serious head trauma .

Credible sources and eyewitnesses reported that , during demonstrations following the DATE presidential elections , PERSON riot police and other special forces , such as the antiterrorist unit ORG , beat demonstrators in custody and threatened others with death or rape .

In DATE special forces and PERSON riot police used truncheons and tear gas to break up a peaceful march to PERSON prison to protest the detention of CARDINAL demonstrators . ORG Colonel ORG , who was implicated in the DATE disappearances and presumed deaths of opposition activists , personally beat opposition presidential candidate PERSON before he was tied up and transported by ALMAZ forces to a pretrial detention center . PERSON suffered head and spine injuries from the beatings by Pavlichenko and ALMAZ officers . Neither Pavlichenko , ALMAZ officers , nor other special forces were punished for their actions . In DATE PERSON was sentenced to DATE in prison on politically motivated charges of alleged hooliganism and disturbing the public peace . He remained in prison at DATE .

Hazing of new army recruits by beatings and other forms of physical and psychological abuse continued , according to official sources ; however , the number of reported cases declined .

Other parts of this report contain information related to this subsection ; see subsections CARDINAL.d , CARDINAL.e , CARDINAL and QUANTITY and section CARDINAL .

Prison and ORG

Prison conditions remained austere and were marked by occasional shortages of food and medicine and the spread of diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV / AIDS . In DATE PERSON , chairperson of a ORG working group on arbitrary detention , reported that conditions in detention centers were worse than those in prisons because of poor sanitary and living conditions and restrictions on visitation , phone , and mail privileges . According to domestic human rights monitors , prison conditions have somewhat improved over DATE . However , these groups reported that prisoners did not receive adequate food or warm clothing and were often denied a bed , sheets , change of clothes , and restroom privileges . As a result , tuberculosis , pneumonia and other diseases remained widespread . Former prisoners reported that medical check - ups were rare and conducted by under - qualified medical personnel and that examination results were often fabricated . Dental services were even less available .

The law permits family and friends to bring detainees food and hygiene products , but in many cases authorities did not respect this law .

Overcrowding in prisons , detention centers , and in work release prisons , also known as " khimya , " was a serious problem . Persons sentenced to khimya , which is a form of internal exile , live in prison barracks and are forced to work under conditions set by the government . According to the government , the total number of confined persons in the country was CARDINAL , which included CARDINAL inmates in prisons and CARDINAL convicts in open - type correctional facilities . In addition CARDINAL persons were awaiting trials in detention centers .

Some former political prisoners reported that they were treated worse than murderers , subjected to psychological abuse and often had to share a cell with violent criminals . They also reported that their legal rights were neither explained nor protected . Prisoners who complained about abuse of their rights often were threatened with death , humiliation , or other forms of punishment .

Credible reports indicated that police and prison officials continued to mistreat , torture , and blackmail prisoners . Numerous credible sources claimed that applications for parole frequently depended on bribing prison personnel . While standard bribes were generally MONEY ( MONEY ) high - profile prisoners were often asked to pay larger sums . For example , on DATE , the independent ORG , Nad Baryerom , reported that a parole board denied PERSON , a former intelligence officer , early release in DATE after PERSON refused to pay $ MONEY ( MONEY ) to a fellow inmate who claimed to be demanding the bribe on behalf of prison officials .

Authorities frequently kept persons arrested for political activities in the PERSON jail or the GPE detention center in GPE . Many former detainees described food and medical conditions in GPE as inadequate but better than those in GPE , where demonstrators were usually held for short - term , pretrial detention .

There were reports that PERSON health seriously deteriorated in prison . Although his living conditions were said to be decent , associates claimed that he did not receive adequate medical attention after he was severely beaten by police during his DATE arrest and following a CARDINAL-day hunger strike to protest his jailing and the fraudulent results of the presidential election . Authorities denied PERSON 's wife and attorney visitation rights during the hunger strike .

During DATE there were no reported instances of the government permitting independent monitoring of prison conditions by local or international human rights groups , independent media , or ORG . However , the government granted some international experts access to the general prison population . In DATE an official NORP delegation visited inmates in CARDINAL correctional facilities in and around GPE . On occasion , authorities granted foreign diplomats access to political prisoners in the presence of officials ; however , most requests to visit political prisoners were denied . ”

NORP The relevant parts of the report read as follows :

“ IV . THE SITUATION OF THE BASIC FREEDOMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

ORG and political rights ; mechanisms of protection

Systematic violations of civil and political rights and the deprivation of NORP citizens ' right to effectively take part in the conduct of public affairs continue to be observed . Human rights protection mechanisms remain extremely weak , and there is no national human rights institution . The judicial system is still subservient to the executive branch and there is no genuine independent legislative branch ...

Administration of justice and law enforcement , the death penalty , disappearances and summary executions

Since his last report , the Special Rapporteur has remained concerned that GPE is the last country in LOC to apply the death penalty . The situation in the country is still characterized by harsh conditions of pretrial detention , the practice of torture and other inhuman treatment , and excessive use of force by the police .

Furthermore , it is alleged that judges virtually never refer to the LAW or international treaties when they hand down rulings and that the decisions of ORG are often ignored . Trials are often held behind closed doors without adequate justification , and representatives of human rights organizations are denied access to courts to monitor hearings . Punishments are often totally disproportionate . The right to appeal is limited as ORG acts in many cases as the court of first instance , leaving no possibility for appeal . Before and after the presidential elections , CARDINAL people were reportedly summarily put on trial without access to a defence lawyer . Concerns were expressed regarding respect for their right to a fair trial . ”

PACE Resolution No . DATE reads insofar as relevant as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The situation in GPE has been the focus of close attention by ORG since DATE , when the NORP parliament was granted PERSON status . GPE ' lack of progress in the field of democracy , human rights and the rule of law , however , led to the suspension of this status in DATE , and to the freezing of GPE ' membership application to ORG following year . The ORG continues to look forward to the time when GPE meets the conditions to be a member of ORG and its authorities undertake a firm commitment to live up to the standards of the Organisation and embrace its values .

In DATE , important developments have taken place in GPE : DATE , CARDINAL opposition figures considered as political prisoners were released , including former presidential candidate PERSON . As a result , since then , in GPE , there have been no internationally - recognised political prisoners . The ORG welcomes this tangible progress and calls for it to be made irreversible .

The ORG also welcomes the registration of the opposition movement For Freedom ! , as well as the possibility for CARDINAL independent media outlets ORG , PERSON and Uzgorak – to be published in GPE and their inclusion in the state distribution network . However , media freedom is far from being respected in GPE , especially with regard to broadcasting .

It also considers as a positive development the setting up of a number of ORG , under the aegis of the Presidential administration and other state bodies , as fora where the authorities can engage in a constructive dialogue with representatives of non - governmental organisations and civil society . The ORG hopes that the outcome of the discussions taking place in the Consultative Councils will lead to inform legislative and policy measures .

Concerning the disappearance of CARDINAL political opponents in DATE , the ORG notes with satisfaction that none of the senior officials named in Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) as being strongly suspected of involvement either in the disappearances themselves or in their cover - up still occupies a position of responsibility . But it strongly regrets that the investigations into these crimes have still not been allowed to progress any further , despite the elements provided in the ORG 's report .

What adds to the importance of these developments is that they respond to precise demands coming from NORP organisations , and that they have been undertaken in the context of the resumption of political dialogue with the NORP leadership .

In effect , following the release of all political prisoners in GPE , in DATE ORG took the decision to resume contacts with the NORP leadership at the highest level and to suspend , even if partially and temporarily , the visa - ban against a number of high - ranking NORP officials , including President PERSON . This suspension was extended for DATE in DATE . The willingness of ORG to normalise relations with GPE was epitomised by the visit of ORG , Mr PERSON , to GPE and his meeting with President PERSON on DATE .

GPE is also CARDINAL of the CARDINAL countries that will participate in ORG , a new instrument designed to strengthen political and economic co - operation between ORG and its ORG and NORP neighbours , with a view to enhancing their stability and supporting democratic and market - oriented reforms . The level of GPE ' participation will depend on the overall development of its relations with ORG . In this context , GPE attended the ORG summit in GPE , on DATE . ORG also intends to establish LAW with GPE .

ORG , for its part , has recently intensified its contacts with the NORP authorities : following a visit by a delegation of the ORG 's ORG in DATE , Minister PERSON conducted an official visit to GPE , in DATE , in his capacity as Chair of ORG . DATE , the NORP authorities had finally given their consent to the opening of an infopoint on ORG in GPE , an idea initiated by the ORG itself and developed by the NORP Chairmanship of ORG . The opening ceremony of the NORP took place in DATE .

Furthermore , in DATE , ORG decided to grant observer status to ORG of ORG of ORG .

Despite recent positive developments , however , and the resumption of contacts with NORP organisations , the situation in GPE continues to be a cause for concern .

Firstly , the parliamentary elections of DATE were a missed opportunity for a decisive change towards democracy , as they failed to meet NORP standards of freedom and fairness . As highlighted by the ORG , serious shortcomings affected all stages of the electoral process , from the availability of pluralist information for voters to the lack of transparency of the vote count . These shortcomings inevitably cast a doubt over the representativeness of the present ORG , where no single opposition candidate managed to gain a seat . It is , however , to be welcomed that , following the final ORG assessment , the NORP authorities agreed to work with the OSCE / ODIHR on the reform of the country 's electoral legal framework and practice , in order to align them with GPE ' PERSON commitments .

As regards respect for political freedoms , harassment and intimidation of opposition activists , in particular youth , continue to take place through various means , such as unwarranted searches of private houses , unlawful requisition of equipment , police brutality during demonstrations and forced conscription into the military service despite previous declarations of being unfit for service . In addition , a number of political activists are under house arrests and the criminal record of those political prisoners who were released has not been erased , with the result that they face limitations in the exercise of some rights , including the right to run for elections .

The ORG also takes note of the fact that , as of DATE , CARDINAL entrepreneurs , who are currently in detention , as well as other persons who are subjected to limitations of personal liberty , are considered by the NORP opposition as political prisoners or , at least , as victims of an abuse of the criminal justice system for political reasons . The ORG calls for an independent investigation to be conducted into these cases , in order to clarify whether they are political prisoners and , if so , to secure their release .

The situation regarding freedom of association also gives rise to concerns : even if the political opposition movement For Freedom ! was finally registered in DATE , other opposition and human rights organisations continue to face obstacles in obtaining registration by ORG , the latest example being the human rights organisation PERSON , and its members risk prosecution for membership in a non - registered organisation , under LAW .

The ORG regrets that , despite the inclusion of CARDINAL independent publications in the state distribution network , the other independent media outlets can not benefit from this scheme and can not even be printed in GPE . Absolute governmental control over the printing and the distribution of the press as well as over broadcasting is a flagrant violation of media freedom . Similarly , the ORG expresses concern at the difficulties encountered by foreign journalists in obtaining press accreditation and by foreign media , such as the satellite channel ORG , in obtaining registration by ORG . It takes note , however , of the numerous statements emanating from the NORP leadership on their willingness to ensure that the new media law is not implemented in such a way as to restrict freedom of expression . The ORG wishes that the same could be said for the implementation of the PERSON on counteraction against Extremism , which has recently led to the suspension of the publication of the magazine ORG , later withdrawn following international pressure .

It also regrets that capital executions can still be carried out in GPE , despite the reduction of the categories of crimes for which they can be inflicted , a decrease in the number of death sentences handed down in such cases and the fact that no executions have been carried out since DATE according to official statements . The ORG recalls that , in DATE LAW , the death penalty is considered as a transitional measure and that no legal impediment prevents either the President or the ORG from introducing a moratorium on executions . While no public statistics are available , the ORG also takes note of the information provided by the authorities that currently there are no capital sentences whose execution is pending .

Considering that , although GPE is far from ORG standards in the field of democracy , the rule of law and human rights , its authorities have recently taken important steps in the right direction , the ORG resolves to encourage the continuation of this process by engaging in a political dialogue with the authorities , while at the same time continuing to support the strengthening of democratic forces and civil society in the country ... ”

“ ORG in DATE ” in respect of GPE noted , in particular , disregard for political freedoms , including police violence and arrest of political activists .

The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights in its DATE Report on Human Rights in LOC noted that the most frequent victims of ill - treatment were participants in peaceful demonstrations who were taken to police stations and placed in pre - trial custody . With respect to the judiciary , the ORG said that “ the judicial system remained dependent on the executive power and the courts acted as executors of state ideology ... The political engagement of the judiciary was confirmed in their rulings on politically motivated cases . ”

As to prison conditions , the ORG observed :

“ In many cases , conditions in pre - trial facilities ... were poor enough to amount to cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment .

As a rule , the average floor area per inmate in pre - trial facilities and prisons was QUANTITY ( including bed ) , in dirty , poorly ventilated cells without necessary hygiene facilities . It was reported that inmates sometimes had to sleep in turns , for lack of a bed for everyone . The inmates also lacked sufficient nutrition and were not always provided with the necessary medical care and medication . ”


The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , in the district of GPE , in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that FAC , FAC , FAC and FAC did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting their ownership of the property in GPE .

Furthermore , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Abdulvahap Ayşin , PERSON , PERSON and Muhyetin Ayşin did not submit their authority forms .

In DATE , security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to ORG and its districts where they currently live .

On CARDINAL MayCARDINAL the mayor of GPE village filed a petition , on behalf of the residents , with ORG of the Governor ’s office in ORG and asked the latter to allow the residents of the village to cultivate their lands .

On DATE the applicants filed petitions with the office of the District Governor ’s office in ORG and requested permission to return to their village .

On DATE the FAC Governor rejected their requests .

On an unspecified date , the mayor of GPE filed a petition , on behalf of the residents , with the office of the Prime Minister and requested permission to return to their village .

On DATE the office of the Prime Minister sent a reply to the mayor and informed him that his petition was transmitted to ORG .

On DATE the mayor of GPE filed a further petition , on behalf of the residents , with the office of the Prime Minister and requested permission to return to their village .

On DATE the Research , Planning and Coordination Committee attached to ORG sent a reply to the mayor and informed him that GPE village was not yet suitable for residence .

It is to be noted that the applicants failed to submit a copy of these petitions to the ORG .

The official records indicated that the inhabitants of GPE had evacuated their village on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) terrorist organisation against the villagers . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - award

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are the owners of a house and a surrounding plot of land with a surface area of QUANTITY , located on the island of GPE . The plot is adjacent to the promenade of LOC . The title deeds relating to this property , duly deposited in ORG , date back to DATE .

NORP In particular , on DATE ORG bought the plot at a public auction conducted by ORG . On DATE ORG sold the plot to GPE , who sold it to her daughter PERSON on DATE . The latter donated a part of the plot to her daughter , the third applicant , on DATE . On DATE CARDINAL F.V. donated the remaining part of the plot to her son , the first applicant . On DATE the first applicant granted himself a life interest in the property and settled the remainder on his daughter , the second applicant .

All these transactions were executed by deeds of public notaries duly deposited in the transcription registry . The applicants have always declared the property to be in their ownership and have paid the relevant taxes on it .

In DATE the first applicant applied to ORG of the municipality of PERSON for a permit to start minor building works .

On CARDINAL DATE the municipality of PERSON claimed that the northern part of the land in question constituted land for public use . On DATE ORG rejected the first applicant ’s request on the ground that the topographical survey submitted by the applicants was inaccurate , as it wrongly included public land among their property .

On DATE and DATE the municipality of PERSON and the applicants filed opposing claims with ORG , each asking to be declared the owners of the disputed piece of land .

In DATE ORG delivered an interlocutory judgment ordering a number of expert assessments . In particular , the court appointed ORG , a civil engineer , to conduct an expert assessment in order to clarify whether the disputed land was included in the ORG title deeds ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG took into consideration the ORG title deeds , the planning legislation in force and the official topographical and planning charts of ORG of the Piraeus Prefecture and produced his expert report . After having prepared a topographical survey , he concluded that the disputed land was included in the ORG title deeds .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicants’ claims , holding that an area of QUANTITY on the northern side of the applicants’ garden constituted public land ( judgment no . CARDINAL ) . In particular , ORG took into account several witnesses’ testimonies and aerial photographs and attached particular importance to the fact that the applicants had never exercised any ownership rights over that part of the land , since they had never cultivated it or planted trees or erected a fence there .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ appeal ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In particular , it held that according to a rule of NORP - Roman law ( vetustas ) , which had been applied in GPE before the introduction of LAW in DATE , a property could be considered to be “ for public use ” ( κοινόχρηστο ) if it had been in common use for “ an indefinite number of DATE in human memory ” ( αμνημονεύτου χρόνου αρχαιότητα ) . It further explained that , for this rule to be applied , CARDINAL generations of people , each CARDINAL spanning DATE had to remember that the disputed land had been in public use in the past . This DATE period in human memory must had to have been completed by DATE , the date on which LAW had come into force , since the LAW did not provide for such a rule .

Subsequently , ORG applied the above rule and found that it was proved from the testimonies of the witnesses put forward by the municipality of PERSON that the disputed land had been freely used by local people DATE and had thus become public . It concluded that , independently of the question whether the disputed land was included in the ORG title deeds , it had become land “ for public use ” , and thus part of the municipality ’s property . Furthermore , it considered that the fact that the land in issue did not appear as public property in the official planning charts of the island of GPE was of no importance since the land had become public because of its public use .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It held that ORG had correctly applied NORP - Roman law to the facts of the case . It accepted that it had been proved that the disputed land had been in common use since DATE and concluded that the applicants had never become its owners ( judgment no . CARDINAL ) . Its judgment was “ finalised ” ( καθαρoγραφή ) on DATE .


ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONALE REDUCI AND 275 OTHERS v. GERMANY

The applicants are an association , ORG Reduci PERSON Liberazione ( GPE ) , registered in GPE , and CARDINAL natural persons who are all NORP nationals ( see list appended ) . Most of those individuals are members of the applicant association . Some of the applicants lodged the application in their capacity as legal successors . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr J. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

s , may be summarised as follows .

Most of the applicants were members of the NORP armed forces during the Second World War . GPE had first been an ally of ORG , but after PERSON ’s fall the new ORG concluded a truce with the allied forces on DATE . As of CARDINAL DATE the NORP armed forces disarmed and captured NORP soldiers . The NORP army offered those captured NORP soldiers the choice of either joining the NORP armed forces or becoming prisoners of war . The latter were detained in labour camps and used as labourers in the NORP industry .

As of DATE those detainees were called “ NORP Military internees ” ( “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE GPE declared war against GPE .

Beginning in DATE the internees were transferred from war captivity ( Kriegsgefangenschaft ) to so - called “ civilian employment ” ( PERSON ) . At first , the internees were asked to sign an according declaration consenting to the change of their status . Despite pressure exercised by the NORP authorities , only few internees agreed to the transfer of their status . The Government of ORG then abstained from obtaining those declarations and transferred the internees to civilian status without any formal declaration . They were subsequently registered as civilian forced labourers . The working conditions and the detention in labour camps , however , did not change . The internees had to carry out physically hard work without receiving adequate nutrition and many of them died as a consequence .

CARDINAL of the applicants , among them Mr GPE and PERSON , were not members of the NORP armed forces . They were civilians who were deported to GPE and subjected to forced labour as an act of retaliation against the NORP civilian population .

GPE , after its foundation on CARDINAL DATE , did not establish any compensation schemes specifically for forced labourers .

Under LAW on GPE ’s ORG ) of DATE , the regulation of compensation claims was deferred until the final settlement of reparation .

GPE paid compensation to victims of the NORP regime , mostly to those who were living in GPE , GPE and other GPE , in particular pursuant to the provisions of LAW ( ORG ) , which entered into force on DATE . It provided inter alia compensation for detention in a concentration camp and damage caused to the detainees’ health . However , forced labour as such was not covered by the existing legislation .

In DATE GPE and GPE concluded an agreement pursuant to which GPE paid a lump sum to the NORP ORG , which then awarded compensation to victims of persecution by the NORP regime . ORG did not award any benefits to the former “ NORP Military Internees ” . They receive a supplement of MONEY per day to their regular old - age pension from ORG , as do all former members of the NORP armed forces who were detained as prisoners of war .

After DATE GPE furthermore paid lump sums to several ORG , which then created funds for victims of the NORP regime .

However , individual compensation for forced labour as such was still not provided by GPE . Hence many of those former forced labourers brought actions against NORP companies , in particular class action suits in GPE . Against that background the Government of GPE and ORG of GPE concluded a treaty that envisaged the creation of the foundation “ PERSON , Responsibility and Future ” ( ORG , Verantwortung und ORG ” “ the ORG ” ) which would provide individual compensation for former forced labourers .

GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG on NORP Material Claims against GPE ( “ the NORP Claims Conference ” ) , legal representatives of former forced labourers and representatives of the NORP industry had participated in those negotiations . GPE had not been a party .

On DATE the “ Law on the Creation of the ORG “ Remembrance , Responsibility and Future ” ( Gesetz PERSON “ GPE , Verantwortung und FAC ” “ the LAW ” ) entered into force ( see “ Relevant domestic and international law ” below ) .

On DATE the applicant association , a former NORP Military LOC ( M ) and the CARDINALst applicant ( Mr GPE ) , who had been subjected to forced labour as a civilian , lodged a constitutional complaint against sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL , QUANTITY and QUANTITY of the Foundation Law with ORG .

On DATE applicants CARDINAL . DATE joined the constitutional complaint .

The applicant Mr GPE and M submitted that they had had claims for compensation for forced labour under NORP civil law in conjunction with international public law against GPE prior to the entry into force of LAW . Invoking a violation of their right of property ( LAW see “ Relevant domestic and international law ” below ) they complained that they lost those claims by virtue of LAW of LAW . All complainants contended that the exclusion of judicial review of the decisions by ORG ) violated their right to an effective remedy under LAW of LAW . Moreover , they held the opinion that the exclusion of former prisoners of war from the ambit of compensation under LAW was discriminatory and thus contrary to LAW of the German Basic PERSON ( prohibition of discrimination ) . Lastly , the complainants submitted that they had lost the right under LAW of the LAW to have the unlawfulness of their arrest , detention and forced labour confirmed by a judge .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the complaint . In respect of the applicant association the court held that the complaint was inadmissible since the association did not invoke a violation of its own constitutional rights , but solely a violation of the rights of its members . Regarding applicants nos . DATE , the court found that the complaint had been lodged outside the statutory time - limit of DATE since the entry into force of the Foundation Law on DATE . As far as the applicant Mr GPE and M were concerned the court held that their complaint was partly admissible , but unfounded .

In respect of LAW of the NORP Basic PERSON the court held that LAW did not apply to the arrest , the detention and the forced labour , since those events had taken place before LAW entered into force on DATE . Furthermore , referring to LAW ( “ LAW ” – see “ Relevant domestic and international law ” below ) the court found that international public law did not establish individual claims for compensation for forced labour . The court pointed out in particular that LAW did not establish an individual claim of compensation against a ORG , but created only claims of CARDINAL ORG . The court went on to say that it was not excluded that national law might establish claims of individuals that existed next to the claims of ORG . This , however , did not mean that there was a general rule according to which individuals had a right of compensation against the ORG which had violated LAW . Hence the question as to whether individuals were entitled to compensation was entirely dependant on domestic law .

Moreover , the court found that the exclusion of former prisoners of war from the scope of those eligible for benefits under LAW by LAW § CARDINAL was not discriminatory since prisoners of war could be compelled to perform labour under LAW . In this respect the court elaborated that the legislator was allowed to distinguish , when awarding compensation , between victims of general hardships caused by the war and victims of particular ideological persecution by the NORP regime , especially as the funds of the ORG were limited .

In respect of the exclusion of judicial review by the Foundation Law the court found that LAW of LAW required that actually a right existed whose alleged violation could be examined by the courts . The court concluded that the legislator was free to decide not to establish claims of an individual vis - à - vis a public law foundation and to exclude judicial review in this connection .

In its decision ORG pointed out that , according to his own submissions , PERSON GPE had not lodged a request for compensation with the ORG since he had not been detained in “ another place of confinement ” within the meaning of LAW § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of the Foundation Law and was furthermore not in a position to demonstrate that he met the requirements as set up by the guidelines of ORG ( see “ Relevant domestic and international law ” below ) .

The applicants nos . DATE submitted that they had all lodged unsuccessful request for compensation for forced labour with the ORG . However , only the ORG and ORG applicants , PERSON and Mr della PERSON , presented decisions of the ORG to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG rejected the request lodged by the applicant PERSON holding that he did not meet the requirements for compensation under LAW in respect of forced labourers from LOC ; i.e. forced labour in a concentration camp , a ghetto or “ another place of confinement ” .

On DATE the ORG ’s appeals board rejected Mr della PERSON ’s appeal as unfounded , confirming that , as a former prisoner of war , he was excluded from benefits .

On DATE the ORG and GPE applicants , PERSON and Mr Malberto , who had been subjected to forced labour as NORP Military Internees , lodged requests for compensation with the ORG . By letter dated DATE the ORG informed the applicants that they did not fall within the scope of ORG , as determined by the ORG and ORG . By letter of DATE the ORG notified the applicants that its appeals board was bound by the decision of the ORG and ORG . Apparently , no formal decision was rendered by the ORG .

On DATE the applicants PERSON and Mr Malberto brought an action for declaration ( PERSON ) against GPE and the ORG in ORG as a pilot case . They requested the court inter alia to hold that they , as former NORP Military Internees , were entitled to benefits under LAW .

The court rejected the applicant ’s action . The court found that the action was inadmissible since there was no legal relationship ( Rechtsverhältnis ) between the applicants on the one hand and GPE and the ORG on the other hand , which is an admissibility criterion for an action for declaration . LAW did not establish individual claims vis - à - vis the ORG or ORG , but solely vis - à - vis the partner organisation . The court added that the fact that ORG exercised the legal supervision of the ORG did not create a legal relationship between the applicants and GPE . From the court ’s point of view the legal supervision was solely carried out in the public interest and not in the interest of the beneficiaries under LAW . The court held the opinion that the applicants were thus only indirectly affected by the legal supervision of ORG .

The court refused the applicants leave to appeal .

ORG rejected the ORG request for leave to appeal against the judgment of ORG confirming the lower court ’s reasoning .

On DATE the ORG applicant , Mr della Piazza , brought an action ( Verpflichtungsklage ) against GPE and the ORG in ORG . He requested the court to order ORG to instruct the ORG to recognise that he was entitled to benefits under LAW of LAW . Furthermore , he requested the court to order the ORG to recognise that he , as a former NORP Military Internee , was entitled to benefits under LAW of LAW .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s action . In respect of the first motion the court held that the applicant could not derive any rights vis - à - vis ORG from the fact that the latter exercised the legal supervision of the ORG .

As regards the applicant ’s second motion the court found , as outlined above , that LAW did not establish a legal relationship between the applicants and the ORG .

The Foundation Law stipulates that the ORG should be endowed with MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , to be provided equally by ORG and by NORP industry .

The sum of CARDINAL ORG is intended for the compensation of forced labour . The largest share of those funds ( MONEY DEM ) is reserved for applicants residing in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . The remaining share is destined for beneficiaries residing outside GPE , namely CARDINAL DEM for non - NORP beneficiaries and PERCENT ORG for NORP beneficiaries .

The remaining funds of MONEY DEM inter alia aim at compensating the loss of property or were granted as humanitarian aid to ORG and ORG on ORG , which finance social programmes for Holocaust survivors .

ORG exercises the legal supervision ( Rechtsaufsicht ) of the ORG .

Requests for compensation are not processed by the ORG itself , but by its regional partner organisations in several NORP countries . The competent partner organisation for GPE is the ORG in GPE .

Each partner organisation has an appeals board which reviews the organisation ’s decisions upon an applicant ’s appeal . Judicial review of the appeals boards’ decisions is not provided for by LAW .

The highest amount of compensation - for forced labour in a concentration camp - is CARDINAL DEM ( CARDINAL ORG ) .

Pursuant to LAW § CARDINAL of the Foundation Law forced labour carried out during war captivity , as a matter of principle , does not entitle to compensation . The provisions read as follows :

“ LAW : Eligible persons

( CARDINAL ) Eligible under this law are :

NORP persons who were detained in a concentration camp as defined in CARDINAL LAW or in another place of confinement outside the territory of what is now GPE or a ghetto under comparable conditions and were subjected to forced labour ;

NORP persons who were deported from their homeland to the territory of ORG within the borders of DATE or to a NORP occupied area , subjected to forced labour in a commercial enterprise or for public authorities there , and detained under conditions other than those mentioned in Number CARDINAL , or were subjected to conditions resembling detention or similar extremely harsh living conditions ; this rule does not apply to persons who because their forced labour was performed primarily in the territory of what is now GPE may receive payments from ORG ; ...

( CARDINAL ) Prisoner - of - War status does not entitle to benefits .... ”

In respect of the exclusion of former prisoners of war the travaux préparatoires state that according to international public law prisoners of war may be forced to perform work by the detaining state .

In DATE ORG obtained an expert opinion on the legal status of the NORP Military Internees which concluded that those had never lost their prisoner - of - war status , because ORG had not been in a position to revoke their status unilaterally . ORG shared that view and instructed the ORG that former NORP Military Internees were excluded from benefits under LAW .

In DATE the board of trustees of the ORG issued guidelines according to which NORP Military Internees were excluded from benefits unless they had been detained in a concentration camp . Those guidelines had been prepared in concert with ORG . In a letter dated DATE addressed to the ORG the ORG pointed out that the ORG and its partner organisations were bound by the ORG ’s position .

As regards civilian forced labourers from GPE , they , according to the aforementioned guidelines , are only entitled to benefits if they were subjected to forced labour in a concentration camp , a ghetto or “ another place of confinement ” as set out in the first sentence of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Foundation Law . Otherwise , from the ORG ’s point of view the former forced labourers would not meet the criterion of “ similar extremely harsh living conditions ” referred to in the second sentence of LAW § CARDINAL of LAW . According to the ORG there was a presumption that they were not housed under “ conditions resembling detention ” , which could , however , be rebutted by the former forced labourers .

All possible further claims against the NORP ORG or NORP companies going beyond the benefits provided by LAW are excluded by LAW , which reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL : Exclusions from Claims

( CARDINAL ) Payments from public funds , including social security , and from NORP business enterprises for injustice suffered under ORG as defined in LAW may be claimed only under the terms of this PERSON . Any further claims in connection with ORG injustices are excluded . This applies also to cases in which claims have been transferred to third persons by operation of law , transition , or a legal transaction .

( CARDINAL ) Each claimant shall provide a statement within the framework of the application procedure irrevocably renouncing , without prejudice to Sentences CARDINAL through CARDINAL , after receipt of a payment under this PERSON any further claim against the authorities for forced labour and property damage , all claims against NORP enterprises in connection with ORG injustice , and forced - labour claims against GPE or NORP enterprises . The renunciation becomes effective upon receipt of a payment under this PERSON . ... ”

Article CARDINAL

A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall , if the case demands , be liable to pay compensation . It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces .

Article CARDINAL

Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government , but not of the individuals or corps who capture them .

They must be humanely treated .

All their personal belongings , except arms , horses and military papers , remain their property .

Article CARDINAL

The ORG may utilize the labour of the prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude , officers excepted . The tasks , however , shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war .

Article CARDINAL

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special ORG , it is especially forbidden -

To declare abolished , suspended , or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party . A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country , even if they were in the belligerent ’s service before the commencement of the war . “

Article CARDINAL

“ The High Contracting Parties recognise that recourse to compulsory or forced labour may have grave consequences and undertake each in respect of the territories place under its sovereignty , jurisdiction , protection , suzerainty or tutelage , to take all necessary measures to prevent compulsory or forced labour from developing into conditions analogous to slavery .

It is agreed :

( CARDINAL ) Subject to the transitional provisions laid down in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) below , compulsory or forced labour may only be exacted for public purposes .

( CARDINAL ) In territories in which compulsory or forced labour for other than public purposes still survives , the High Contracting Parties shall endeavour progressively and as soon as possible to put an end to the practice . So long as such forced or compulsory labour exists , this labour shall invariable be of an exceptional character , shall always receive adequate remuneration , and shall not involve the removal of the labourers from their usual place of residence . ”

“ LAW

Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Power , but not of the individuals or corps who have captured them .

They must at all times be humanely treated and protected , particularly against acts of violence , insults and public curiosity .

Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited .

Article CARDINAL

Prisoners of war shall be lodged in buildings or in barracks affording all possible guarantees of hygiene and healthfulness .

DATE must be fully protected from dampness , sufficiently heated and lighted . All precautions must be taken against danger of fire .

With regard to dormitories the total surface , minimum cubic amount of air , arrangement and material of bedding - the conditions shall be the same as for the troops at base camps of the detaining Power .

LAW

Belligerents may utilize the labour of able prisoners of war , according to their rank and aptitude , officers and persons of equivalent status excepted .

However , if officers or persons of equivalent status request suitable work , it shall be secured for them so far as is possible .

Noncommissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work , unless they expressly request a remunerative occupation .

Belligerents shall be bound , during the whole period of captivity , to allow to prisoners of war who are victims of accidents in connection with their work the enjoyment of the benefit of the provisions applicable to labourers of the same class according to the legislation of the detaining Power . With regard to prisoners of war to whom these legal provisions might not be applied by reason of the legislation of that Power , the latter undertakes to recommend to its legislative body all proper measures equitably to indemnify the victims .

Article CARDINAL

No prisoner of war may be employed at labours for which he is physically unfit .

Article CARDINAL

It is forbidden to use prisoners of war at unhealthy or dangerous work .

Any aggravation of the conditions of labour by disciplinary measures is forbidden .

Prisoners utilized for other work shall be entitled to wages to be fixed by agreements between the belligerents . ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) All persons shall be equal before the law .

Article CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) ORG and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed . Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws .

( CARDINAL ) ORG entails obligations . Its use shall also serve the public good .

( CARDINAL ) Expropriation shall only be permissible in the public interest . It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation . Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected . In case of dispute respecting the amount of compensation , recourse may be had to the ordinary courts .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

Should any individual ’s rights be infringed by public authority , he may have recourse to the courts . ... ”

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under LAW and DATE , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL of the Convention about the decisions rendered by the ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG .

In respect of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention the applicants complained that they were denied the right to have the illegality of their deportation and forced labour acknowledged .

Invoking LAW the applicants submitted that they did not have access to a court for the judicial review of the decisions rendered by the ORG . In particular , the applicants complained that the ORG appeals body did not satisfy the requirements of an ” independent and impartial tribunal ” within the meaning of LAW .

Under LAW the applicants argued that they were discriminated against both as foreigners and as former NORP Military Internees .

Moreover , they held the opinion that they had had claims for compensation under domestic civil law in conjunction with international public law against GPE which had become extinct as a result of LAW of LAW . They therefore complained of a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL . The applicants based their claims in particular on LAW , LAW and LAW . Furthermore , the applicants argued that NORP Military Internees had been in fact civilian forced labourers and not prisoners of war as maintained by ORG . They contended that they had not been treated as prisoners of war by ORG and considered it contradictory that GPE held that alleged status against them to deny them compensation . Lastly , the applicants who had been subjected to forced labour as civilians complained about the refusal of their requests for compensation under LAW .