Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant took a job working on the boat PERSON On TIME CARDINAL DATE , whilst the boat was berthed in QUANTITY harbour , the applicant called the police , telling them that she had been raped by GPE in the boat ’s lounge area .

A police officer soon arrived and found the applicant , PERSON , PERSON ( the owner of the boat ) , and some other people on the boat . The applicant told him that she had been raped , while the others said that she had been disturbing public order . The police interviewed witnesses PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and the suspect PERSON

The relevant part of a police report drawn up by officer ORG indicates as follows :

“ Since NORP was in a state of shock I could not conduct a detailed interview with her ...

The waiter PERSON said that it was true that he had put his fingers in NORP ’s private parts , but that he had not taken off her underwear ... ”

NORP The police drove the applicant and PERSON in the same vehicle to FAC . At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to ORG , where she remained until TIME on DATE . She was seen by a gynaecologist , who established that she did not have injuries on her genitals but had a few lacerations on her body , without noting any further details .

On DATE FAC lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney against GPE on the basis of the applicant ’s allegations of rape . ORG lodged a request with ORG for an investigation in respect of PERSON on the basis of the allegations of rape . PERSON was arrested and brought before GPE , an investigating judge at ORG .

Also on DATE , Judge PERSON heard evidence from GPE , who denied raping the applicant . He explained that the applicant had become very drunk and he had taken her to her cabin on the boat . The judge then issued a decision expressing his disagreement with the request for an investigation . The relevant part of his decision reads :

After the investigating judge had heard evidence from the suspect and consulted the case file , he established with certainty , on the basis of the documents enclosed with the criminal complaint , that before the event at issue the injured party had been in the company of several persons , including the suspect , in bar “ F. ” in PERSON , where she had consumed a large quantity of alcohol , which was recorded by the breathalyser , and then they had all gone to the ship E. berthed in the close vicinity , on which the suspect , the injured party and other persons were employed and where the guests were asleep in their cabins .

After arriving on the ship , and while still in the bar , the injured party had disturbed public peace and order , saying that she was drunk , that somebody had drugged her , and [ asking ] that the police be called . She said all this to a minor [ child ] , ORG , ... but did not say that anyone had raped her or had committed any acts equal to sexual intercourse . Moreover , in her statement to the police PERSON stated that she had refused to call the police when she had seen that the injured party was drunk , and that the injured party had then slapped her in the face .

After arriving on the ship , and this was confirmed by the statement of the ship owner , PERSON , the injured party had shouted , entered the ORG cabins and woken them up , to which PERSON had responded by asking her to stop shouting and disturbing the guests and she had then punched him in the stomach . After that , according to his statement , he had asked the captain of a ship berthed next to his to take NORP off the ship , which they had done . The injured party had acted even more aggressively , shouting hysterically , especially when the owner of the ship , PERSON , told her not to come back to his ship and that she had lost her employment . They had carried her away from the ship and made her sit on the seafront next to the ship until the police had come .

All of the above was confirmed by PERSON , the owner of the bar “ F. ” , but the injured party did not mention the word ‘ rape’ or any other indecent act ; she only said that somebody had made her drunk and drugged her , all of which transpires from the police report on page CARDINAL of the case - file . Her allegations are confirmed by the statement [ given to the police ] by PERSON , as well as other eyewitnesses . The injured party asked for the police to be called , saying that she had been drugged while in the bar . She asked the same of all the eyewitnesses , and repeated her request while she was on the ship and when she was physically thrown off the ship , but during all that time she never mentioned any criminal acts .

The criminal complaint and the enclosures in the case - file show with certainty that the injured party was not , at any moment , alone with the suspect , nor did she mention to anyone after the alleged event that there had been any acts which could qualify as the criminal offence of rape .

A medical report drawn up at ORG , enclosed with the criminal complaint , does not mention any injuries on the genitals of the injured party but only lacerations on her body which were obviously caused when she refused to leave the ship but was dragged and carried from it before the police arrived , when she sustained these injuries .

In view of the statements given by the eyewitnesses , which were enclosed with the criminal complaint , the eyewitnesses all having been present throughout the events , the investigating judge is convinced that there was no reason for arresting PERSON , and after his questioning ... I have not established that there is a reasonable suspicion [ on account of which ] to open an investigation , ... and I do not agree with the request for opening an investigation ... ”

NORP The case file was then forwarded to a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , which on DATE ordered an investigation in respect of GPE on the basis of the applicant ’s allegations of rape . The investigation was conducted by Judge PERSON

A medical report drawn up by a doctor at ORG on DATE records that the applicant had bruises on her genitals , a rash on the back of her upper legs and CARDINAL smaller bruises on her buttocks .

A medical report drawn up by a doctor at ORG on DATE noted that the applicant was suffering from an acute reaction to stress .

On DATE the applicant , on her own initiative , gave the skirt she had been wearing on the night in question to the police in C. as a piece of evidence . It was not given for forensic examination .

On DATE and DATE the police interviewed PERSON , PERSON , GPE . PERSON F.B. Ve . PERSON said that PERSON had told him that she had found the applicant ’s underwear on the boat and thrown it in the garbage . He further stated that PERSON had commented that he would like to have sex with the applicant . ORG also said that PERSON had commented that he would like to have sex with the applicant .

At the request of ORG the applicant was interviewed at FAC , which was closer to her place of residence , on DATE .

On DATE the S. State Attorney ’s ORG asked that witnesses PERSON , GPE , GPE , ORG PERSON and F.B. be heard . They also asked for the forensic examination of possible biological traces on the clothes the applicant had been wearing during the critical event .

On DATE the same ORG asked that an examination of the applicant ’s clothes be carried out in order to establish whether they had any traces of biological material on them .

On DATE Judge PERSON heard evidence from witnesses PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and on DATE from F.B.

On DATE he heard evidence from the applicant . She said that PERSON had raped her in the lounge of the boat where they had both been employed . She also said that the police officer who had arrived after her call had asked the men why they had n’t thrown her into the sea . She alleged that her skirt had been torn and had had traces of blood on it , and she had told the officer that she had not being wearing any underwear because PERSON had torn it and thrown it away in the boat ’s lounge and told her that she had been drunk and not raped . The applicant had asked the officer to secure the evidence at the scene , such as her clothes , including her underwear , but he had replied that there was no need for that because she had been drunk and had not been raped . She had also heard the officer telling PERSON not to worry and that “ everything would be taken care of ” . When the police had arrived PERSON had already taken a shower .

She also said that some time after the incident GPE . PERSON , had telephoned her to tell her that her underwear had been found and that one of the boat ’s employees , PERSON , had thrown it in the garbage . She had telephoned the police to inform them about this but they had hung up on her .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG to lodge a request for the withdrawal of Judge PERSON on account of his bias against the applicant . She received no reply .

On DATE Judge PERSON heard evidence from GPE , the gynaecologist who had seen the applicant on DATE , after the incident . He said that he had not noticed any injuries on the applicant ’s genitals but that she had had few scratches elsewhere on her body , which he had not recorded because they did not fall into the gynaecological sphere .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG asked Judge PERSON to ask for the results of all the forensic examinations of biological traces available in respect of the applicant , as well as those concerning her injuries , and to hear evidence from a further witness , GPE . M.

On DATE Judge PERSON commissioned a psychiatric report on the applicant in order to establish her ability to correctly interpret events . He also ordered that the applicant ’s previous psychiatric records be provided . The psychiatric report of DATE relied on the applicant ’s previous records concerning the period DATE and DATE and a telephone conversation with the applicant , without having met her .

On DATE , at the request of ORG , officers at ORG interviewed the applicant ’s father about the applicant ’s relationship with her family .

On DATE Judge PERSON received the forensic report on the biological traces , which did not establish any connection between the biological traces taken from the applicant and PERSON The skirt the applicant had worn on the critical event was not examined .

On DATE Judge PERSON obtained the forensic report concerning the applicant ’s injuries , which established that the medical report concerning the applicant drawn up on DATE by the gynaecologist at ORG had mentioned a few scratch marks on her body but no injuries on her genitals . The medical report drawn up on DATE by a physician at the C. Hospital established that she had CARDINAL scratch marks on her genitals , a rash on the back of her thighs and CARDINAL haematomas . Judge PERSON concluded that the injuries established by the physician at ORG had been recorded DATE after the alleged rape and had not been established by the gynaecologist who had seen the applicant on TIME after the alleged rape ; they could not therefore be connected with certainty with the event .

On DATE Judge PERSON commissioned a medical report on the injuries sustained by the applicant . On DATE a medical report drawn up by an expert in forensic medicine established that the applicant ’s injuries had first been recorded on DATE by a doctor at the C. hospital , while the gynaecologist who had seen the applicant on CARDINAL DATE had not recorded any injuries . Therefore , the doctor concluded that the injuries recorded on CARDINAL DATE could not be directly connected with the event of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE Judge PERSON issued a decision expressing his disagreement with the request by the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG DATE to hear evidence from witness GPE . PERSON on the ground that he was not available since he had not answered the summons of the investigating judge to appear and the police could not find him . The GPE State Attorney ’s ORG lodged an appeal . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG upheld the decision of the investigating judge on the ground that the information in the case file showed that witness GPE . PERSON had no direct knowledge of the criminal offence allegedly committed against the applicant .

The applicant alleges that the police interviewed her father about her relationship with her family .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG ceased to pursue the criminal prosecution of GPE for lack of evidence .

On DATE the investigating judge terminated the criminal proceedings against GPE

On DATE the applicant took over the prosecution and lodged a bill of indictment against GPE in GPE on charges of rape . On DATE the bill of indictment was sent to GPE for reply .

On DATE the S. County Court scheduled a hearing for CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the lawyer representing the applicant informed ORG that she was on maternity leave and was no longer able to represent the applicant in the proceedings at issue . She also informed ORG that the applicant had instituted proceedings before ORG and was seeking legal aid .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE , stating that it was expected that by that time a legal aid lawyer would have been allocated to the applicant .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for legal aid on the grounds that the purpose of legal aid was not to institute criminal proceedings and that the proceedings in question were not of essential importance for the applicant since she had not lodged a compensation claim in connection with them . This decision was upheld on DATE by ORG and the applicant was instructed that she could institute proceedings in ORG within DATE in order to challenge the administrative bodies’ decisions . She did not do so .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that she had not obtained legal aid and that , owing to lack of means , she could not continue the proceedings against GPE

On DATE the S. County Court terminated the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the police by telephone , complaining about the police officers from FAC in connection with the event at issue . On DATE the lawyer representing the applicant reiterated her complaint in writing .

On DATE the Head of ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against officers GPE and ORG from the S .- D. Police Department .

On DATE the Head of the S .- D. Police Department informed the lawyer representing the applicant about the disciplinary proceedings against the police officers .

On DATE the First Instance Disciplinary Court of ORG of ORG adopted a decision establishing the disciplinary responsibility of officers GPE and ORG and fined them each MONEY of DATE salary . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ Police officer GPE ...

is responsible for failing to supervise and instruct officer ORG , whom he had assigned to conduct the criminal enquiry in the case concerning the criminal offence of rape ... against PERSON ... by PERSON ... , and for not informing the Head of the police station of the errors he had established when signing the criminal complaint ( such as : the failure to carry out an in situ inspection and a detailed informative interview with the injured party , which resulted in a failure to draw up adequate reports ; failure to collect clothes from the participants in the event at issue ; and incomplete filling in of the required forms ) ; also for not ordering the immediate rectification of the errors he had noted in the criminal complaint so as to order the conducting of a detailed interview with the injured party and the drawing up of adequate reports , and the seizure of her clothes and the clothes of the suspect ...

by which he committed a grave breach of his official duty ... defined as ‘ failure to act or untimely or reckless conduct or conduct lacking diligence in the carrying out of his official duties’ ...

Police officer ORG ...

is responsible for ... failures in his official conduct when he was assigned to carry out the criminal inquiry in connection with the criminal offence of rape against PERSON , because he did not order an in situ inspection ; nor did he take a statement from the injured party or conduct a detailed informative interview with her ... nor did he take the clothes that the injured party and the suspect were wearing in order to give them for forensic examination ...

by which he committed a grave breach of his official duty defined as ‘ failure to act or untimely or reckless conduct or conduct lacking diligence in the carrying out of his official duties’ ...

The relevant articles of LAW ( Ustav PERSON ) provide :

“ No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... ”

“ Respect for and legal protection of everyone ’s private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour is guaranteed . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that a decision ( pojedinačni akt ) of a ORG body , a body of local or regional self - government , or a legal person with public authority , which has decided on his or her rights and obligations , or on a suspicion or accusation in respect of a criminal act , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , ... guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter : ‘ constitutional right’ ) ... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Official gazette FAC . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) reads :

“ Whoever forces another person into sexual intercourse or another sexual act of equal nature by using force or threatening that he or she will directly attack her life or body or the life or body of a person close to her shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of DATE . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall be instituted and conducted at the request of a qualified prosecutor only . ...

( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences to be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .

( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party may take his place under the conditions prescribed by this LAW as a subsidiary prosecutor . ”

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW regulate the rights and duties of a private prosecutor and of an injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor . LAW distinguishes between these CARDINAL roles . A private prosecutor ( privatni tužitelj ) is an injured party who brings a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such prosecution is expressly prescribed by LAW ( these are offences of a lesser degree ) . The injured party as a subsidiary prosecutor ( oštećeni kao tužitelj ) takes over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecuting authorities , for whatever reason , have decided not to prosecute .

Pursuant to LAW , the State Attorney is under a duty to inform an injured party within DATE of a decision not to prosecute and of that party ’s right to take over the proceedings , as well as to instruct that party on the steps to be taken in order to proceed with the prosecution .

( CARDINAL ) Where the criminal proceedings are conducted upon a request by the injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor in respect of a criminal offence punishable by DATE imprisonment , he or she may ask to have legal counsel appointed free of charge where this is in the interests of the proceedings and where the injured party lacks the means to bear the expenses of legal representation ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A [ criminal ] complaint shall be lodged with the competent ORG ] in writing or orally .

“ ( CARDINAL ) When the investigating judge receives a request for an investigation he or she shall examine the case - file and hear the person in respect of whom the investigation is requested , without delay ... If he or she agrees with the request he or she shall issue a decision on the opening of the investigation ...

( CARDINAL ) If the investigating judge does not agree with the request for the opening of an investigation , he or she shall ask a [ CARDINAL - judge ] panel of the competent county court to decide upon it ...

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Every legal entity and every natural person has the right to respect for their personal integrity under the conditions prescribed by LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The right to respect for one ’s personal integrity within the meaning of this LAW includes the right to life , physical and mental health , good reputation and honour , the right to be respected , and the right to respect for one ’s name and the privacy of one ’s personal and family life , freedom et alia .

“ Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one ’s personal dignity ( non - pecuniary damage ) . ”

The relevant part of section ORG ) of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) reads as follows :

“ A person intending to bring a civil suit against GPE shall first submit a request for a settlement to the competent ORG .

Where the request has been refused or no decision has been taken within DATE of its submission , the person concerned may file an action with the competent court .

The relevant part of section ORG ) of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ A person intending to bring a civil suit against GPE shall beforehand submit a request for a settlement to the competent ORG Attorney ’s office .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o ustrojstvu državne uprave , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON ) reads as follows :

“ GPE shall compensate damage caused to a citizen , legal entity or other party by the unlawful or wrongful conduct of a ORG administrative body , or a body of local self - government or administration ... ”

In decision no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG found that the conditions of detention of a prisoner , TIME , in FAC amounted to inhuman treatment . It also addressed the question of TIME ’s claim for just satisfaction . The relevant parts of the decision read :

“ In particular , ORG finds the [ lower ] courts’ opinion that in this case an award for non - pecuniary damage can not be made under LAW on the ground that such compensation claim is unfounded in law , unacceptable .

Section CARDINAL of LAW defines non - pecuniary damage as infringement of the right to respect for one ’s personal integrity . In other words , every infringement of the right to personal integrity amounts to non - pecuniary damage .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW defines the right to personal integrity for the purposes of that LAW as : the right to life , physical and mental health , reputation , honour , dignity , name , privacy of personal and family life , freedom and other rights .

... it must be concluded that in this case there has been a violation of human , constitutional and personal rights because the applicant was placed in prison in conditions incompatible with the standards prescribed by LAW , conditions also incompatible with the legal standards under LAW ) of the LAW . For that reason the courts are obliged to award compensation for the infringement of the applicant ’s dignity .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's husband brought an action against her before ORG , asking the court to dissolve their marriage and divide the matrimonial property . After holding several hearings and obtaining the opinion of an expert , ORG dissolved , in a partial decision , the applicant 's marriage on DATE .

At the applicant 's request , the case was suspended DATE and DATE pending a related dispute . After holding numerous further hearings and obtaining the opinions of additional experts , the court divided the matrimonial property on DATE .

NORP On appeal , on CARDINAL DATE the Veszprém County Regional Court partly changed the first - instance decision .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life)

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . At the material time they lived in the village of GPE , in LOC of GPE . They are currently residing in the village of GPE , in LOC of GPE .

The applicants are the parents of Mr PERSON , born in DATE . They also have CARDINAL other sons : ORG and PERSON .

At the material time ORG was a student at a secondary school . A certificate issued by the local authorities confirmed that ORG had not participated in any illegal armed groups .

According to inhabitants of LOC , special military unit no . CARDINAL of ORG ( « CARDINAL-е стрелковое спецподразделение МО РФ DATE , hereinafter “ military unit no . CARDINAL ” ) was based near their village in DATE .

On TIME the applicants and ORG were sleeping at their family home . TIME the first applicant went outside the house to perform an ablution .

At TIME an armoured personnel carrier ( “ ORG ” ) , an infantry battle vehicle ( “ IBV ” ) and a Ural vehicle arrived at the Idalovs ' house ; a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks descended from them . The first applicant inferred that the men belonged to the NORP military .

The servicemen started breaking the entrance door and windows . The first applicant asked them why they were doing so . In reply the servicemen shouted at her and forced her to enter the house .

Meanwhile CARDINAL or CARDINAL servicemen broke into the house without producing any documents or search warrants . The first applicant saw the faces of CARDINAL unmasked servicemen who had NORP features ; they spoke NORP without an accent . The servicemen hit the second applicant , tied his arms behind his back , forced him to the floor and pointed a machine gun at him .

Marvan PERSON was studying when the servicemen entered his room . They tied his arms , put a sack on his head and took him to the street . It appears that they then put ORG in CARDINAL of the vehicles parked at the house and left . Some neighbours submitted that the vehicles drove away in the direction of the base of military unit no . CARDINAL .

According to the decision of the district prosecutor 's office of DATE to grant the second applicant victim status in criminal case no . DATE , on DATE CARDINAL unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks travelling in an ORG , an ORG and a lorry with an anti - aircraft gun on it unlawfully entered the applicants ' house , kidnapped PERSON and took him away to an unknown destination .

NORP Immediately after their son 's abduction the applicants requested information on his whereabouts from the head of special military unit no . CARDINAL , PERSON , who replied that the military servicemen under his command had not carried out any special operations in the morning of DATE and had not apprehended PERSON .

The applicants continued searching for their son . They applied to various official bodies , such as the prosecutors ' offices at different levels , the departments of the interior , ORG , the NORP State PERSON and the Special Envoy of the NORP President in GPE , asking to help them to find PERSON . In their efforts the applicants were assisted by the PERSON . It appears that those complaints were futile .

On DATE the first applicant complained about her son 's disappearance to the military prosecutor 's office of ORG ( “ the ORG prosecutor 's office ” ) .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL ( “ the prosecutor 's office of unit no . CARDINAL ” ) sent a letter to the ORG prosecutor 's office and the first applicant concerning ORG disappearance . The copy of the letter submitted to the ORG is illegible .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE sent a letter to the ORG prosecutor 's office and the second applicant concerning ORG disappearance . The copy of the letter submitted to the ORG is illegible .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE forwarded the first applicant 's complaint about her son 's disappearance to the prosecutor 's office of LOC of GPE ( “ the district prosecutor 's office ” ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office invited the first applicant to send her queries concerning her son 's kidnapping to the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that an inquiry into her son 's alleged kidnapping by unidentified military servicemen had been carried out . The inquiry established that on DATE the NORP military had not organised any special operations and had not apprehended ORG . No traces of military personnel implication in ORG kidnapping had been found .

On DATE the North - Caucasus Operational Department of ORG of ORG of the Interior for ORG informed the first applicant that it had verified the facts relating to her son 's disappearance and had sent the collected materials to the prosecutor 's office of GPE .

On DATE the SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor 's office , the prosecutor 's office of GPE and the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE , requesting them to inform it whether an investigation into ORG disappearance had been instituted and , if so , to provide details on the course of the investigation and to grant the first applicant the status of victim of a crime .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE replied to the SRJI that ORG had not been apprehended by servicemen of the department of the interior of LOC ( “ ROVD ” ) or kept in the temporary detention facility of the ROVD . They further noted that the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE had inquired into ORG kidnapping .

On DATE the PERSON repeated their requests concerning PERSON fate to the district prosecutor 's office and to the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE instituted an investigation into the disappearance of ORG under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) and ordered the district prosecutor 's office to assign a number to the case file . On DATE they informed the first applicant accordingly and invited her to send further queries to the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the PERSON wrote to the district prosecutor 's office and to the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE , repeating their requests of CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE informed the PERSON that it had instituted criminal proceedings in relation to ORG disappearance and that the investigation was under way .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE forwarded the ORG 's complaint about ORG kidnapping to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL ( “ the prosecutor 's office of unit no . CARDINAL ” ) and requested that the SRJI submit a detailed description of the crime to that office .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE forwarded the ORG 's complaint to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . DATE ( “ the prosecutor 's office of unit no . CARDINAL ” ) and requested that the ORG submit a detailed description of ORG kidnapping to that office .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office granted the first applicant victim status in case no . DATE , instituted in relation to ORG kidnapping by unidentified armed persons . On DATE second applicant was informed of the decision to grant him the status of victim of a crime in case no . DATE , issued by the district prosecutor 's office on an unspecified date .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE forwarded the ORG 's complaint about ORG kidnapping to the prosecutor 's office of unit no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the PERSON sent the prosecutor 's office of unit no . CARDINAL information on ORG kidnapping as requested by the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE forwarded the ORG 's letter to the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of unit no . CARDINAL informed the SRJI that there was no evidence of the implication of military personnel in the crime and that the investigation should therefore be carried out by a civilian prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the PERSON requested the district prosecutor 's office , the prosecutor 's office of GPE and the prosecutor 's office of unit no . DATE to inform it of the state of the proceedings instituted in relation to ORG kidnapping .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE informed the PERSON that the first applicant had been granted victim status and that she would be updated on progress in the investigation .

On DATE ORG of GPE forwarded the applicants ' letter dated DATE to the ROVD and requested it to search for ORG and his kidnappers more actively and to inform the applicants of measures taken .

On DATE the ROVD informed the applicants that the investigation into the kidnapping of GPE and PERSON in case no . DATE had been commenced on DATE and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that the investigation into the kidnapping of ORG had been resumed on DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office received a complaint by the first applicant dated DATE and addressed to ORG GPE . According to the complaint , on an unspecified date during DATE of PERSON unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had entered the Idalovs ' house in the village of GPE and kidnapped PERSON .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office ordered the ROVD to ensure the first applicant 's appearance before the investigators , to collect depositions by her relatives and to examine the scene of the incident .

Later the ROVD reported that the first applicant 's whereabouts were unknown and that her neighbours had no information concerning the merits of her complaint .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the prosecutor 's office of GPE that it was impossible to give a decision on the first applicant 's complaint owing to the failure to establish her whereabouts or to find any evidence of the facts complained of .

On an unspecified date the temporary department of the interior of LOC ( “ NORP ” ) informed the district prosecutor 's office of the following . They had established that Vakhid and PERSON had been active members of illegal armed groups and that ORG had been an accomplice of insurgents . PERSON had been killed in DATE in a fight with federal servicemen . PERSON and PERSON had not been arrested by the NORP servicemen and had been hiding from the federal authorities .

Several residents of Akhkinchu - Borzoy informed the investigation that CARDINAL of the first applicant 's sons had been involved in unlawful activities of illegal armed groups .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office decided on the basis of the inquiry 's results to refuse to institute criminal proceedings in the absence of any crime .

DATE . On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE quashed the decision of DATE and ordered the district prosecutor 's office to institute an investigation into ORG abduction under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .

On DATE the second applicant was granted victim status and questioned . He submitted that ORG had been kidnapped on DATE by unknown persons in masks .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned . She made a statement similar to that by her husband .

The investigators requested information from law - enforcement agencies of GPE and were told in reply that ORG had not been arrested , prosecuted or held in any detention facilities and that no special operations had been carried out in FAC - Borzoy on DATE .

The Idalovs ' relatives and neighbours were questioned in the course of the investigation and submitted that they had no information concerning the circumstances of ORG kidnapping .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation in case no . CARDINAL concerning the kidnapping of ORG on DATE on account of the failure to identify those responsible and notified the applicants accordingly .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office resumed the investigation in case no . CARDINAL and notified the applicants accordingly .

The investigation in case no . DATE was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office again suspended the investigation .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office resumed the investigation in case no . CARDINAL .

The Government submitted a copy of an undated document entitled “ Explanation ” , signed with the name of the first applicant and addressed to the prosecutor 's office of GPE . The document stated that in DATE a group of servicemen had found bags with firearms and ammunition in a cemetery in LOC near the Idalovs ' house . The first applicant had been detained for questioning for some time . Then she had found out that her son PERSON had been killed in unknown circumstances . In DATE her son PERSON had gone to the forest with insurgents . DATE he had returned home and started hiding from the authorities . Then he had tried to flee the country and to go to GPE . The first applicant had no information on his whereabouts . He might have been arrested by federal servicemen . At TIME on DATE the first applicant had seen an ORG , an ORG and a vehicle fitted with an anti - aircraft gun arriving at her house . CARDINAL armed men had entered the house ; all the men but one had been wearing masks , and the unmasked man was tall and had red hair . The armed men had taken away ORG . The first applicant had told of the kidnapping to officials of the district prosecutor 's office whom she had seen on the LOC .

The investigation failed to identify the perpetrators . The involvement of federal troops in the kidnapping was not proven . The investigation was suspended several times owing to the failure to identify those responsible and was then resumed in order to verify certain items of information . It was pending under the supervision of ORG .

Despite specific requests by ORG , the Government did not disclose most of the contents of the file in criminal case no . DATE , providing only copies of the first applicant 's “ explanation ” , several witnesses ' interviews , decisions to grant the applicants victim status and a few notifications to the applicants concerning the suspension and resumption of the investigation . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

For a summary of relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives at FAC ( département of NORP ) . He is an officer in the NORP navy .

On DATE Mr Maillard caused to be entered in the complaints register of the fleet escort ship D’Estrées the following application for reconsideration of his assessment for DATE :

I … learnt that at senior level and at supreme level my marks had been significantly reduced : for the criterion ‘ standard of service’ the mark had been lowered from CARDINAL to CARDINAL and for the criterion ‘ promotion’ from B to C+ , the whole being accompanied by the following written appraisal : ‘ Is not up to the level that should be achieved by a second in ORG ( or , within a word or CARDINAL , a very similar expression ) . To this day I have been given no explanation of this reduction in marks or of what prompted such a statement .

I consider that this appraisal is excessively severe , unjust and personally offensive . I would refer in this connection to the appraisal made by Commander PERSON , the assessor at immediate - superior level , to the smooth running of the ship during the period on which my assessment was based and to the responsibility I bear under the rules for that smooth running , and , lastly , to the good performance of the D’Estrées during the general inspections of DATE and DATE , attested by the messages of congratulations sent by the admiral commanding the LOC fleet on those occasions .

Furthermore , the appraisal calls in question the wisdom of the decisions of those of my superiors who on CARDINAL occasions saw fit to appoint me to a second - in - command post and the appraisals made by the various commanding officers who assessed me as their second in command .

I accordingly have the honour to request that

( CARDINAL ) the sentence ‘ Is not up to the level that should be achieved by a second in ORG should be deleted . It is an appraisal made not of the standard of my performance which is meant to be the subject of the assessment , but of my person , in a manner which casts a slur on my honour as it is offensive ;

( CARDINAL ) the criteria CARDINAL , DATE ( standard of service and promotion ) and consequently DATE and CARDINAL ( promotion and ‘ ORG at supreme level ) should be raised in consequence , given the implied meaning of the sentence complained of in regard to the level of my service and my promotion potential ; and

( CARDINAL ) once my marks at senior and supreme level have been reassessed , given the effect that my DATE assessment may have under the current rules , on the introductory memorandum submitted by ORG for the competitive examination for entry to ORG , it should be considered whether that reassessment is not such as to justify reconsideration of my failing that examination . ”

On DATE the ORG Chief of Staff dismissed the complaint . In a letter of DATE he informed the Commander - in - Chief for the LOC of the fact and requested that the applicant should be notified of it .

On DATE , having still not received any reply , the applicant had sent his complaint to the Minister of Defence ; it was dismissed in a decision taken by the Minister on DATE .

On DATE and DATE Mr Maillard applied to the ORG d’Etat for judicial review of those CARDINAL decisions . He filed supplementary pleadings on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG d’Etat quashed the decision containing the applicant ’s assessment for DATE and the decisions of DATE and DATE . It gave the following reason :

“ It is unnecessary to consider the grounds of the applications .

According to the provisions of LAW DATE making general regulations for service personnel , as amended by LAW DATE , ‘ service staff shall be assessed at least once a year . The marks and appraisals shall be compulsorily communicated to the service personnel DATE . When the assessment is made , the chief shall make known to each of his subordinates his appraisal of each individual ’s performance’ . The same PERSON provides in LAW that implementing provisions shall be laid down in decrees adopted after consultation of the ORG d’Etat . Similarly , under LAW , the special rules governing professional service personnel must be laid down in a decree adopted after consultation of the ORG d’Etat .

… Mr Maillard ’s assessment for DATE was drawn up according to the procedure of assessment at several successive levels of authority and to an assessment scale laid down in the ministerial directive of CARDINAL DATE concerning the assessment of naval officers . That directive laid down new general rules which govern the implementation of the PERSON and which could therefore only have been lawfully laid down by a decree adopted after consultation of the PERSON d’Etat . It follows that the impugned decision containing Mr Maillard ’s assessment for DATE , together with the ORG decisions whereby the ORG Chief of Staff and thereafter the Minister of Defence refused to revise the assessment , decisions made under rules issued by an authority lacking the necessary competence , are unlawful … ”

On DATE Mr Maillard sent the following letter to the admiral superintendent of NORP naval dockyard :

“ I have the honour to ask you to kindly forward to the higher authorities the present letter in which I am seeking

( CARDINAL ) pursuant to the ORG d’Etat ’s decision [ of DATE ] , to have my assessment for DATE removed from my personal file ;

( CARDINAL ) to be assessed for DATE in accordance with the legal requirements ;

( CARDINAL ) given the substantial damage I have suffered by reason of the impugned assessment , which is evident to me , inter alia , from the fact that since DATE in question I have not been given any post of responsibility at sea ( command or second in command ) , to have my career retrospectively adjusted as laid down in the PERSON d’Etat ’s case - law . ”

On DATE the ORG Chief of Staff decided to remove the impugned assessment from the applicant ’s personal file , to draw up and add to that file a new assessment for DATE identical with the first one and to refuse the application for retrospective adjustment of career . On the latter point the Chief of Staff considered that “ the development of [ the applicant ’s ] career [ had ] not been affected by the formal irregularity impugned by the PERSON d’Etat , an irregularity which [ had ] not , in particular , had the consequence of placing this senior officer in circumstances different from those in which the other officers competing with him [ found ] or [ might ] have found themselves ” .

Mr Maillard complained to ORG of the ORG d’Etat about the difficulties he considered he was encountering in having the judgment of DATE executed .

On DATE the Deputy General Rapporteur replied that the administrative authorities had in fact drawn the appropriate conclusions from the judgment setting aside the first assessment for DATE and that if he wished to challenge the lawfulness of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on its merits , he would have to apply to ORG of the ORG d’Etat .

On DATE the applicant applied to the ORG d’Etat for judicial review of the decision of CARDINAL DATE and , consequently , of the CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE establishing the table of command posts for DATE . He produced supplementary pleadings on DATE .

On DATE Mr Maillard lodged another application seeking judicial review of a decision of DATE establishing the table of command posts for DATE and an order that the ORG should pay him the sum of MONEY ( section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

NORP The Minister of Defence filed his defence on DATE . The applicant replied on DATE and produced fresh documents on DATE .

The reporting judge was appointed on DATE and submitted his report on DATE .

A preparatory sitting was held on DATE and the hearing took place on DATE .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG d’Etat quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the following ground :

“ It is unnecessary to consider the other grounds …

… under LAW of DATE on the assessment of service personnel , adopted pursuant to the PERSON [ of DATE , as amended , making general regulations for service personnel ] , ‘ service personnel shall be assessed at CARDINAL or more levels by the authorities to which they are subordinate’ . That decree did not come into force until DATE .

It appears from the evidence that while Mr Maillard ’s new assessment for DATE was drawn up according to the procedure of assessment at several successive levels provided for in LAW of DATE on the assessment of service personnel , that decree was not applicable to assessments drawn up for DATE . Moreover , no other provision of service regulations provided for the implementation of such a procedure for DATE . The applicant is accordingly justified in seeking to have his assessment for DATE quashed . Furthermore , the administrative authorities could not lawfully refuse him retrospective adjustment of his career without undertaking a fresh review of his position and his merit . ”

The applicant ’s other claims were dismissed .

On DATE ORG reinstated the assessment drawn up in DATE .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG of the ORG d’Etat of the difficulties he considered he was encountering in levying execution of the judgments of DATE and DATE . On DATE the Deputy General Rapporteur replied as follows :

After interventions by ORG of the ORG d’Etat ORG informed me in a letter of DATE that your position would be re - examined by the advisory board provided for in section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE . That board met at DATE and did not agree to a revision of your assessment that would have enabled your superiors to adjust your career retrospectively if appropriate .

That being so , seeing that your assessment for DATE and your career position have been reviewed and a fresh individual assessment decision has been taken by ORG , ORG considers that the authorities have taken the necessary measures to execute the ORG d’Etat ’s judgment [ of CARDINAL DATE ] .

That being so , I can only close your file , without prejudice to the rights you might again have occasion to assert before ORG of the ORG d’Etat .

On DATE Mr Maillard applied to the ORG d’Etat seeking , firstly , judicial review of the assessment drawn up on DATE and , secondly , an order for full discovery of a DATE report on his assessment .

On DATE he lodged another application , in which he sought judicial review of CARDINAL decisions taken by the Minister of Defence on DATE establishing , firstly , the promotion table for DATE and , secondly , the table of command posts for DATE .

The hearing took place on DATE , and in a judgment of DATE the ORG d’Etat quashed the assessment of CARDINAL DATE on the following grounds :

In a decision of DATE the ORG d’Etat , acting in its judicial capacity , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE whereby Mr Maillard ’s assessment for DATE was determined , on the ground that the assessment had been drawn up according to the procedure of assessment at several successive levels and to an assessment scheme , both of which ( the procedure and the scheme ) had been laid down in a ministerial directive of CARDINAL DATE , setting out general rules , which by sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law of DATE , as amended , must be enacted in a decree adopted after consultation of the ORG d’Etat . In a decision of DATE the ORG d’Etat , acting in its judicial capacity , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE whereby Mr Maillard ’s assessment for DATE was redetermined , on the ground that the assessment had been drawn up according to the procedure for assessment at several successive levels which was provided for in LAW of DATE on the assessment of service personnel , although that decree was not applicable to assessments drawn up for DATE and there was no provision in general regulations for the implementation of such a procedure for DATE . Following the quashing of those decisions , it was for the Minister of Defence to take the necessary measures to ensure that Mr Maillard was retrospectively assessed for DATE under the rules then applicable . In the absence of a decree adopted after consultation of the ORG d’Etat as provided in LAW DATE , as amended , it was for the commanding officer of the D’Estrées in DATE , the ship on which Mr Maillard performed the duties of second - in - command , to make that assessment and , if appropriate , for the assessed officer to appeal to a higher authority . Only if it had been impossible to carry out that exercise for factual or legal reasons could the administrative authority have lawfully reviewed Mr Maillard ’s performance for DATE in the sole light of all the information in his file which concerned the assessment period .

… [ W]ithout ascertaining whether it was possible to have PERSON assessment carried out afresh by the commanding officer of the D’Estrées in DATE , ORG , instead of making a fresh assessment of the qualities of the assessed officer for the period in question , did no more than reproduce in full the quashed assessments which had been drawn up by means of a procedure entailing several successive levels of authority , a procedure that had been censured in the aforementioned decisions of the ORG d’Etat . The impugned decision of CARDINAL DATE was accordingly unlawful and must be quashed , without its being necessary to order discovery of the [ report of the ] inquiry by commanding officers as sought by Mr Maillard . ”

In the meantime the assessment complained of had been revised on the basis of reports made in DATE by the commanding officer of the D’Estrées and signed by him .

On DATE ORG had informed the applicant that ORG had reconsidered his file and delivered the following opinion :

“ After making a fresh DATE assessment of Commander PERSON for DATE and looking at the effect of that new assessment on his total marks , ORG finds that the assessment did not have any bearing on his subsequent career and that a retrospective adjustment of his career is not justified . ”

On DATE the applicant had applied to the ORG d’Etat for judicial review of the decision of CARDINAL DATE whereby his application for retrospective adjustment of his career had been refused and of decisions of CARDINAL and DATE establishing the promotions table for DATE and the table of command posts for DATE respectively .

On DATE the President of the Seventh Section of the Judicial Division of the ORG d’Etat made an order striking out the proceedings , on the ground that Mr PERSON had failed to produce within the statutory time the supplementary pleading he had announced in his application .

Service personnel are not subject to the “ ORG Code ” but to the “ ORG ” ( Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , as amended ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE , as amended , provides :

“ Service personnel shall be assessed at least once DATE .

When making the assessment the chief shall make known to each of his direct subordinates his appraisal of each individual ’s performance . ”

The PERSON provides in LAW that the regulations for its implementation are to be laid down in a decree made after consultation of the ORG d’Etat . The decree relating to assessment was made on DATE ( Decree no . CARDINAL , which came into force on DATE ) ; Article CARDINAL provides :

“ Assessment is an evaluation by the immediate superior of the serviceman ’s moral , intellectual and professional qualities , his physical fitness , his performance during DATE and his ability to occupy higher posts in the immediate future and thereafter .

It takes the form of

General reports ;

Merit levels or marks determined according to a scale or marking scheme respectively , laid down for each service or attached formation in the light of the corps which compose it .

Assessment is distinct from proposals for promotion . ”

Article CARDINAL of the decree provides :

“ The serviceman shall be assessed at CARDINAL or several levels by the authorities to which he is subordinate .

The number of levels of assessment and the designation of the corresponding authorities shall be laid down by the minister responsible for the armed forces in the light of the serviceman ’s corps , grade and function and of the specific organisation of each service or attached formation . ”

Service personnel have the possibility of challenging their assessments in the administrative courts ( ORG d’Etat , DATE , ORG ) .


CASE OF CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. MALTA

Preliminary objection dismissed (victim);Preliminary objection left open (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 13+6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

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

On DATE the applicant company sued a certain PERSON before ORG ( FAC ) . It claimed that a contract concluded with the defendant should be rescinded and requested to reacquire possession of a plot of land . Its claim was based on the fact that , disregarding the obligations arising from the said contract , PERSON had not built a house or a villa on the plot in issue and had failed to pay the agreed DATE rent of MONEY ( MTL – approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

PERSON filed submissions in reply to the applicant ’s claim on DATE and on DATE . The case was set down for hearing on CARDINAL DATE , on which date a number of preliminary pleas were raised . These were determined on DATE . Subsequently , the parties submitted their pleadings and the case was reserved for judgment until DATE . The parties were authorised to submit observations but failed to do so . The case was adjourned first until DATE , then until DATE . The decision was adjourned CARDINAL times .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE Mrs. PERSON appealed against that judgment . The applicant filed submissions in reply on DATE . On DATE the parties presented their oral pleadings and the case was reserved for judgment until DATE . However , the decision was adjourned on CARDINAL occasions .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .

Considering that its case had not been decided “ within a reasonable time ” , on DATE the applicant , invoking LAW and LAW , lodged an application with ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application . It observed that it did not appear that there had been excessive delays in deciding the case at first instance . The preliminary pleas had been decided on DATE and the judgment on the merits had been delivered CARDINAL and a half years after the date on which the case was ready for decision . Moreover , ORG had waited DATE for the parties to submit their observations . It was true that the proceedings before ORG had lasted a longer time . The fixing of the date of the first sitting had taken DATE and a decision on the merits of the case had not been given until DATE . However , the reasonableness of this delay had to be examined in the context of the national judicial system , in which , unlike in other countries , the right of appeal was automatic . Every litigant who felt aggrieved by a decision given at first instance could lodge an appeal without having to apply for leave to do so . This obliged ORG to examine a large number of cases in detail , bearing in mind that its decision would be the final one , and would therefore not be subject to review by any superior authority . The expenses for bringing an appeal were also relatively low , which constituted another factor encouraging citizens to bring their cases before ORG . In ORG view , the obligation of the ORG to organise its judicial system with a view to complying with the “ reasonable - time ” principle was to be balanced against the other privileges that the NORP system provided to its citizens .

It was true that a period of DATE for deciding the applicant company ’s case was “ a bit long ” vis - à - vis its complexity and the workload of ORG , and that DATE should have been in principle sufficient . However , ORG considered that this delay had not reached the extent of seriously prejudicing the rights of the parties , and was therefore not excessive .

As to the claim for damages , ORG observed that the applicant company was seeking compensation for DATE of unpaid rent ( which amounted to MTL CARDINAL ) . However , the failure to pay the rent was not due to the delay in determining the case and the applicant company could have asked , and could still ask , for the rent arrears from PERSON Moreover , it was likely that the market value of the land had increased during the judicial proceedings . The applicant company alleged that if it had regained possession of its land in DATE or DATE , it could have sold it for ORG CARDINAL . It had accordingly requested the reimbursement of the interest on this sum as compensation for pecuniary damage . ORG could not accept this argument , as the applicant company was still in possession of its land and was trying to sell it for about MTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL . In ORG view , the loss of interest had been compensated by the increase in the value of the land .

ORG concluded that even if a violation of the “ reasonable - time ” principle had been found , no compensation could have been awarded to the applicant company .

The applicant company appealed to ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the decision of ORG and declared that there had been a violation of LAW . It also decided that the costs of the case should be borne by the Attorney General , who should moreover pay the applicant company ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage .

The Constitutional Court observed that ORG had rightly pointed out that the delay in delivering the judgment on appeal had been unreasonable . However , it could not be said that this delay had not infringed LAW . Before ORG , the parties had presented their oral pleadings on DATE , but no decision on the merits had been given until DATE , DATE . The case had been adjourned several times and it did not appear that there had been any special reasons for this . Moreover , the case was not particularly complex and the parties had not obstructed its course . Therefore , an overall period of inactivity of DATE could not be accepted .

The Constitutional Court considered that the applicant company had not suffered any pecuniary damage . It upheld the reasoning of ORG on this point . However , it concluded that prejudice of a non - pecuniary nature could be suffered even by a private company , and awarded ORG CARDINAL under this head .