The applicants , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Iacob Mocanu , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON are NORP nationals , who live in GPE . PERSON is the daughter of PERSON , who was a patient of the ORG NORP haemodialysis section for DATE , but who died on DATE . PERSON is the widow of PERSON , who was a patient of the ORG haemodialysis section for DATE , but who died on DATE . PERSON is the widower of PERSON , who was a patient of the ORG haemodialysis section , but who died on an unspecified date . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , acting on behalf of “ ORG , a non - governmental organisation based in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON ORG , ORG .

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

All the applicants ( except PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , see above ) are suffering from chronic renal failure ( a gradual and progressive loss of the ability of the kidneys to excrete waste , concentrate urine , and conserve electrolytes ) and consequently they need haemodialysis ( a medical procedure that uses a machine to filter waste products from the bloodstream and to restore the blood ’s normal constituents ) .

They are all disabled on account of their disease and receive ORG disability allowances which vary DATE ( MDL ) and MDL CARDINAL .

The applicants have their haemodialysis done at a PERSON hospital called ORG NORP ( the “ LAW ” ) , where CARDINAL patients are treated . The applicants submit that before DATE the expense of their haemodialysis was covered entirely by the hospital . DATE the hospital ’s budget was reduced and only strictly necessary procedures and medication were provided free to them . From DATE the situation became more or less identical to that existing before DATE , with the exception of the frequency of haemodialysis sessions ( see below ) .

There are CARDINAL more hospitals in GPE that perform haemodialysis - another hospital in PERSON called Spitalul de Urgenţă ( the “ SU ” ) , and hospitals in GPE , GPE and PERSON . The applicants submit that , unlike the ORG , the ORG was financed from the budget of GPE and therefore always provided its patients with all the necessary medication free . They also argue that there are administrative barriers presenting the applicants who do not live in PERSON from receiving treatment at the ORG . As to the other CARDINAL hospitals , the applicants submit that the quality of the haemodialysis treatment provided by them is inferior to that of the SCR .

According to the parties , the following are necessary for haemodialysis treatment : a haemodialysis package , heparin , physiological saline , syringes , CaCl ( PERCENT ) , glucose ( PERCENT ) , euphylin PERCENT , alcohol and vitamins . There are also some medications and accessories which are necessary in some cases , namely riboxin , antibiotics , plaster , gauze and blood .

According to the applicants , before DATE the hospital provided them free with the haemodialysis procedure and some basic medication and accessories such as the haemodialysis package , heparin , physiological saline , syringes and CaCl ( PERCENT ) . They had to pay for the rest of the necessary medication . In DATE , the applicants were allegedly told by the hospital authorities that the haemodialysis unit at the ORG might close due to insufficient financing from the ORG budget . The applicants were forced to protest before ORG and in front of the President ’s residence , and consequently the hospital continued to provide them with haemodialysis , but , as previously , without full coverage .

After DATE the hospital started to provide them free with almost all the necessary medication . The hospital does not provide them , however , with a drug called ORG , which operates to raise the haemoglobin level , or with calcium , PERSON and GPE . In order to increase their level of haemoglobin , the applicants are usually given blood transfusions . DATE the applicants were not provided with free blood by the hospital . After that date the hospital started to provide free blood , but the applicants still have to wait until it becomes available . Since they sometimes need blood urgently , they have to buy it . The applicants also submit that no medical investigation for the determination of anaemia status is performed at the ORG and that the doctors only establish the existence of anaemia .

According to the ORG , before DATE the treatment of the applicants was carried out in accordance with the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE on the minimum of medical assistance guaranteed by the ORG ( see below ) . In accordance with that law , the applicants received only the strictly necessary medication free . They had to buy the rest of the medication prescribed by their doctors . PERSON treatment has never been stopped and has never been refused to anybody . According to the official documents provided by the Government , in DATE the haemodialysis section of the ORG received MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of CARDINAL ( ORG ) at the time ) from the ORG budget .

On DATE a new medical insurance system was implemented in GPE and in accordance with the new legislation the applicants started to receive all the necessary medication free ( see below ) . If a patient needs some particular medication not provided by the ORG , then the doctor recommends that the patient buys it . According to a directive of ORG of DATE , the ORG spends MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL at the time ) for DATE of hospitalisation , MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL at the time ) for a haemodialysis of the first degree and MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL at the time ) for a haemodialysis of the second degree .

According to the applicants , in the GPE , GPE and GPE countries , renal failure patients receive TIME of haemodialysis in CARDINAL sittings per week . The same practice was followed in GPE before DATE . After DATE the practice changed and the patients started to receive TIME of haemodialysis in CARDINAL sittings per week . “ Only applicants that are in bad physical condition or ill are allowed to undergo the third haemodialysis permanently ” .

The Government submitted a document from the haemodialysis section of the ORG according to which , in DATE , CARDINAL applicants underwent CARDINAL haemodialysis sessions per week ; CARDINAL applicants underwent CARDINAL sessions per week and the rest CARDINAL or CARDINAL haemodialysis sessions per week . According to the Government , the number of haemodialysis sessions is determined in each case by the doctors , who consider the gravity of the disease , the presence or absence of complications and the results of laboratory investigations .

In their application lodged on DATE the applicants submitted that there were CARDINAL haemodialysis machines at the ORG which were all old and in a bad technical condition . In their observations of DATE they submitted that before their application was lodged with ORG the haemodialysis machines were in bad technical condition ; however , they had been replaced after the application was lodged with ORG . They also stated : “ In DATE the majority of the haemodialysis machines performed dialysis on an acetate basis . After the application was lodged with the ORG , the number of machines that performed haemodialysis on a bicarbonate basis increased . DATE the majority of the applicants are undergoing bicarbonate - based haemodialysis . The bicarbonate - based haemodialysis is much better assimilated by most of the applicants . ”

The Government submit that DATE there were CARDINAL haemodialysis machines , CARDINAL of which were new and the rest of which were old . In DATE the old machines had become unusable because of the shelf - life provision in their documentation and accordingly they had been replaced with new machines of NORP origin .

According to the applicants , before the application was introduced , the water used for haemodialysis was not distilled . “ After the application was lodged with the ORG a water - filtration system was purchased and installed . After the new system was installed , they began to feel much better .... ”

The Government submit that a contract has been signed with a NORP company and in DATE the number of haemodialysis machines will double .

According to the applicants , many of them live in the provinces and have to travel to PERSON each time they need the treatment . Although there is no legal obligation in this respect , there is a practice according to which the local authorities cover the travel expenses for persons suffering renal failure who have to go to PERSON for haemodialysis . The applicants submit that this practice is usually followed and most of them get reimbursed . However , there are cases when these expenses are not covered and it is too expensive for the applicants to pay themselves .

According to the Government , the obligation to cover the transportation expenses of invalids of the first and second degrees is provided for in LAW of LAW on the protection of invalids ( see below ) . The Government submitted copies of the payment rolls proving the payment of all the travel expenses and the applicants did not make any comment on them .

On DATE the applicants sent the ORG a copy of a letter addressed to them and to several PERSON newspapers by the doctors of the ORG ’s haemodialysis section , together with a chart setting out the expenses of each patient . The letter was signed by the medical staff of the PERSON section of the ORG but not by the applicants . The chart was drawn up on DATE and bore the signatures of all the patients of the haemodialysis section of the SCR . The ORG representative admitted that all the applicants had signed the chart .

According to the letter signed by CARDINAL doctors , there was a media campaign led by some PERSON newspapers and news agencies after the present application was lodged with the ORG . The doctors stated that the information presented by the newspapers was erroneous and misleading . They submitted that the situation of renal failure patients from the ORG had been over - dramatised for political reasons related to the forthcoming local elections and that it did not reflect reality . The doctors argued that the death rate of renal failure patients had diminished tenfold in comparison with DATE and that State financing of haemodialysis had increased threefold in DATE . “ We understand that the state of the country ’s economy is not perfect for CARDINAL to have everything ; and that is how it is in the case of health protection ” . The doctors contradicted the statement made by the ORG representatives in various newspaper articles according to which all the haemodialysis machines were old . According to the doctors , CARDINAL machines were brand new . They also disagreed that the situation of the patients of the ORG was worse than that of the patients of the ORG . They argued that their patients were provided with free basic services and medication in exactly the same conditions as patients from other hospitals , and that it was a general practice in GPE that doctors would ask the patients to buy supplementary medication not covered by the “ legal guaranteed minimum ” . The doctors also referred to the death of PERSON and stated that he had been their patient for DATE . According to them , in DATE he had had both his kidneys removed and in DATE of his life he had suffered terminal chronic renal failure and arthritis - like tuberculosis .

The submitted chart contained information as to the coverage of the applicants’ expenses for services / medication and for travel expenses . According to the chart , from the total number of CARDINAL applicants who were patients of the SCR , CARDINAL applicants ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) had the services and medication not covered by the hospital paid for by the local authorities of their hometowns . Another CARDINAL applicants ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) , in addition to the services and medication covered by the hospital , also had the rest partially covered by the local authorities of their hometowns . CARDINAL applicants ( PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON ) did not have their travel expenses covered by the local authorities , and CARDINAL of those had been without cover for DATE .

In their application submitted on DATE the applicants argued that their disability allowance was insufficient to pay for the medication necessary for the haemodialysis which was not provided free by the ORG . According to them , the minimum DATE expense associated with the haemodialysis amounted to MDL CARDINAL per person . Therefore they could not afford the procedure . They submitted that many of them were forced to undergo the procedure without all the necessary medication and were caused unbearable pain and suffering . According to them , there were cases of patients who refused to undergo the procedure for lack of money , and died .

According to the applicants , “ as a result of the reduced number of haemodialysis sessions ... the level of microelements in the blood decreases significantly and that causes headaches , vomiting , sickness , cramps ... ”

The applicants submit that the scarcity of funds made the death rate among renal failure patients higher than in other countries . They invoke the case of PERSON , an applicant who died in DATE . According to them , the death rate in the GPE is CARDINAL deaths per CARDINAL patients per year while at the ORG the death rate before DATE was CARDINAL and CARDINAL deaths . “ The increased death rate was determined by the inadequacy of haemodialysis and by the poor anaemia status . By improving the quality of haemodialysis , the death rate significantly decreased after DATE , when the new haemodialysis machines and the water filtration system were installed ” .

According to the Government , in DATE there have been no deaths due to the insufficiency of haemodialysis . The Government contests the death rate invoked by the applicants , arguing that the applicants had failed to give the names of the persons who had allegedly died because of insufficient or improper medical care . As to the case of PERSON , the ORG submitted that he had survived for DATE without kidneys and that he had died in DATE of chronic arthritis - like tuberculosis and terminal renal failure . The ORG submitted an autopsy report in support of their argument and the applicants did not comment on it .

The Government submitted a TIME video , filmed on DATE in the haemodialysis section of the ORG . The tape contains a brief presentation of the haemodialysis section and interviews with a doctor from that section ; a patient who had undergone haemodialysis at the LAW for DATE ; a patient who had undergone haemodialysis at the ORG for DATE and an applicant in the present case ; a patient who had undergone haemodialysis at the ORG for DATE ; and a patient who had undergone haemodialysis at the ORG for DATE .

The doctor made a brief presentation of the haemodialysis section and stated in particular that the section had CARDINAL patients and that nobody has ever been refused haemodialysis treatment .

CARDINAL of the patients stated that they received CARDINAL haemodialysis sessions per week , but that they could receive a third session if need be . The fourth patient answered that he received CARDINAL haemodialysis sessions per week .

All the patients stated that they had never been refused a haemodialysis treatment ; that they received all the necessary medication free ; that their transportation expenses were covered and that they had never been discriminated against .

CARDINAL of the patients stated that they sometimes used to spend TIME at the hospital and that in those cases they were provided with free food . The fourth patient stated that he never needed to spend TIME at the hospital .

All the patients stated that they had never been maltreated by the hospital personnel and that they considered that the ORG took proper care of them .

The ORG representative submits that the interviewer asked the patients leading questions aimed at obtaining answers convenient to the Government . He also argues that the video shows the present situation of the haemodialysis section and that it does not refer to the situation prior to DATE .

The LAW of GPE provides in Article CARDINAL :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The minimum level of health care protection provided by the ORG shall be free . ”

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , on the legal minimum of medical assistance guaranteed by the ORG , provides :

“ Section CARDINAL . In accordance with the LAW , the ORG guarantees to provide the population of GPE with the minimum level of health care , hereinafter ‘ the guaranteed minimum’ , in conformity with the Annex attached to the present law .

Section CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) The guaranteed minimum shall be provided by all public health - care institutions .

( CARDINAL ) The guaranteed minimum shall be provided to all the citizens of GPE .

( CARDINAL ) NORP citizens and stateless persons shall be provided with health care within the guaranteed minimum in the limits provided for in LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL . – The guaranteed minimum shall comprise :

c ) urgent medical assistance at the pre - hospitalisation and hospitalisation stage , when the patient ’s life is endangered by his or her state of health .

Section CARDINAL . The financing of the guaranteed minimum , in accordance with the ORG budget law for DATE , shall be carried out by the ORG and the local authorities .

Section CARDINAL . Medical services over and above the guaranteed minimum shall be paid for by the individual patient , and the money obtained shall remain at the disposal of the health - care institutions ... ”

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on the social protection of invalids provides :

“ Section CARDINAL . Invalids of the first and second degree , invalid children and persons accompanying invalids of the first and second degree or an invalid child shall be compensated for their travel expenses ( except taxis ) by the local administration organs . ”

According to ORG of Law no . CARDINAL-XV of DATE , in the ORG budget for DATE MDL CARDINAL was allocated for the treatment of patients suffering renal failure .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , on compulsory medical insurance , entered into force on DATE and provides :

“ Section CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) Compulsory medical insurance is a system of health protection based on insurance premiums and on funds created for this purpose . The system of compulsory medical insurance offers the citizens of GPE equal possibilities for obtaining necessary and quality medical assistance .

( CARDINAL ) Compulsory medical insurance is realised by means of contracts concluded between insured persons and the insurer .... ”

The Government sent the ORG CARDINAL letters in which the Presidents of ORG , ORG and ORG , stated that if renal failure patients brought actions concerning insufficient medical care , their courts would examine them . They also stated that no similar cases had been examined by their courts . The President of ORG stated that his court had examined a case in which a hospital was obliged to pay compensation to a renal failure patient ; however the letter did not state what the compensation was for and no copy of the relevant judgment was attached to it .

It appears from the parties’ submissions that after the new law on medical insurance entered into force on DATE the situation of the haemodialysis patients improved considerably in respect of the supply of free medication . In DATE of the haemodialysis machines from the ORG which were old were replaced with new ones . On an unspecified date after the application was introduced with the ORG a new system of filtration of water was purchased and installed in the ORG haemodialysis section .


Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, abuse of right of petition);Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 9 or 13+9;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant , Mr PERSON , a stateless person of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE . He resided in GPE between DATE and DATE , when he was deported . He now lives in GPE .

The second and third applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are the first applicant 's children . They were born in GPE in DATE and DATE respectively . They are of NORP nationality and lived in the town of GPE , GPE , with their mother , PERSON , apparently also a stateless person , until DATE . Thereafter , PERSON and the second and third applicants left GPE and settled in GPE .

The first applicant describes his personal circumstances as follows . His father , who died in DATE in GPE , was a stateless person of NORP origin . His mother is a NORP citizen . Despite the fact that he was born in GPE and that his mother is a NORP citizen , the first applicant can not acquire NORP or NORP nationality because in both countries only offspring of male nationals of those GPE may obtain citizenship .

The first applicant lived in GPE until DATE . He attended high school there and obtained a degree in electronics . In DATE he married PERSON . The parties have not stated the nationality of PERSON , whose parents live in GPE . It appears undisputed , however , that the second and third applicants , her children , became NORP nationals pursuant to a provision which confers NORP citizenship on children born in GPE to stateless parents .

Mr LOC has QUANTITY sisters who live in GPE . His mother also lives in GPE , in the city of PERSON . He also has a brother who lived in GPE at least until DATE and has resided in GPE , where he married a NORP national , since DATE .

The first applicant submits that after the Gulf War many NORP were expelled from GPE as NORP leaders had supported the NORP invasion in DATE . He left GPE with his wife , PERSON , on DATE and travelled to GPE and then , on DATE , to GPE . The first applicant submits that he was in search of a country in which to settle . He could not stay in GPE as he was unable to provide for his family there . The choice of GPE was made because of the existing job opportunities , the relatively easy procedure for obtaining legal status , and the fact that the family had friends of NORP origin living there .

Mr PERSON and PERSON arrived in GPE on DATE . The first applicant was in possession of a NORP stateless person 's identity document , valid until DATE , which he later renewed at ORG in GPE . In an application form for a residence permit he indicated PERSON , GPE , as his place of residence .

On an unspecified date shortly after his arrival the first applicant obtained a temporary residence permit . Mr PERSON , together with other persons , ran a beverages production business . He and his wife initially resided in GPE , where the second and the third applicants were born in DATE and DATE .

In DATE the first applicant obtained a permanent residence permit .

NORP In DATE the first applicant contracted a NORP religious marriage with PERSON a NORP citizen . Under NORP law that marriage has no legal effect .

PERSON lived in GPE with her mother . During an unspecified period of time Mr LOC supported them financially .

It is undisputed that after the religious marriage with PERSON the first applicant continued living with PERSON and their children in GPE .

At DATE he and PERSON , together with their children , moved to GPE , a town of CARDINAL inhabitants in LOC , QUANTITY away from GPE . There the first applicant ran a butcher 's shop and beverages production unit until his deportation in DATE . DATE and DATE he also taught NORP classes .

At DATE PERSON followed the first applicant to GPE , where she stayed DATE in an apartment rented by him . She often joined Mr PERSON during his business trips to towns in GPE .

The first applicant stated that while in GPE he had continued living “ on a permanent basis ” with his wife PERSON and their CARDINAL children , the second and the third applicants . He submitted copies of CARDINAL affidavits , made in DATE by his wife , PERSON , and by his sister - in - law , the wife of his brother , who had resided in GPE since DATE , both confirming that Mr PERSON lived in GPE with PERSON .

In a statement made on DATE at the request of the Government for the purposes of the hearing in the present case , PERSON stated that the first applicant had lived with her in GPE .

PERSON apparently suffered from a mental disturbance . In DATE she was hospitalised in a psychiatric clinic . Thereafter she did not return to GPE and stayed in GPE .

NORP Throughout DATE the first applicant visited PERSON in GPE . Their relationship ended in DATE .

On DATE a police officer in GPE reported to his superiors ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on Mr PERSON religious activities .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG ( окръжна прокуратура ) in GPE opened file no . CARDINAL which was later transmitted to the police .

The local police in GPE , by a report of DATE to ORG ( FAC “ Документи за самоличност и паспортен режим ” ) of ORG at ORG ( “ the Passport Department ” ) , proposed that the first applicant 's residence permit be revoked .

On DATE ORG issued an order ( “ Order no . DATE ” ) revoking the first applicant 's permanent residence permit . The order stated that it was based on LAW ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and LAW ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG за чужденците ) , which provide for the revocation of the residence permit of a foreigner who poses a threat to “ the security or the interests of the NORP State ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No further details were mentioned . The order was transmitted to the NORP police with the instruction to inform the first applicant and to allow him DATE to leave the country .

Order no . DATE was served on the first applicant on DATE . He was not given any additional information .

On DATE CARDINAL national newspapers , ORG , published articles explaining that the first applicant did not have permission to teach the NORP religion , that he had taken part in an unauthorised religious seminar in DATE and that he was linked to “ NORP Brothers ” , a fundamentalist organisation .

In DATE and DATE the local NORP religious leader in GPE and the Chief PERSON of NORP filed with ORG and with other institutions letters supporting the first applicant . They confirmed that Mr PERSON had been teaching with their authorisation , and in full conformity with LAW NORP religious denomination , which in turn had been approved by ORG . The Chief PERSON also stated that the police in GPE had made defamatory statements to the press , falsely portraying Mr PERSON as a dangerous terrorist connected with a fundamentalist organisation . The local NORP religious leader in GPE stated , inter alia , that the measures against Mr PERSON constituted “ a demonstration of , and incitement to , anti - NORP and xenophobic tendencies ” .

In DATE the first applicant requested and obtained a certificate that he had never been convicted of a criminal offence . He needed the certificate in order to apply for NORP citizenship .

On DATE ORG issued Orders nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL for the first applicant 's deportation , his detention and his exclusion from NORP territory .

Order no . CARDINAL provided that the first applicant was to be deported based on LAW of LAW . It was further ordered that , in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , the first applicant was to be placed at the Adults ' Temporary Placement Centre ( Дом за временно настаняване на пълнолетни лица ) in GPE . Order no . CARDINAL finally stated that pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW the decision was not subject to appeal . Order no . CARDINAL prohibited the first applicant 's re - entry on NORP territory .

The CARDINAL orders did not state any reasons .

They were served on the first applicant on DATE in GPE , at the local police station , in the presence of his lawyer . He was not given further details of the reasons underlying the measures against him . He was immediately arrested and transferred to the detention centre in GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a press release announcing the orders for the first applicant 's deportation and exclusion . It stated , inter alia :

“ In DATE Mr PERSON undertook steps ... with a view to opening an NORP religious study centre . That provoked a significant negative public reaction , reflected in the media , and the interference of the ... State organs prevented the realisation of the project .

In DATE an NORP study seminar was held in PERSON with Mr PERSON 's active participation . Those activities of the organisers , including Mr PERSON , were considered unlawful and were therefore terminated by the police . [ The organisers and Mr PERSON ] were warned that they could not engage in such activities without permission and licence as required by law .

In DATE and DATE it became known that Mr PERSON was teaching the Koran to ... minors , organised in groups of CARDINAL children , with the financial assistance of the company ... [ illegible ] . An inquiry was undertaken , which disclosed that Mr PERSON engaged in activities for which he had no permission or qualification . Therefore , and under ... LAW , his residence permit was withdrawn ... Orders for his deportation and exclusion were issued ... [ and ] served on DATE ... PERSON was transferred to the [ detention centre ] in GPE and will be deported ... ”

The conditions at the detention centre , which is located in the proximity of the GPE airport , were equivalent to prison conditions . Inmates were held permanently behind bars and could leave their cells for a daily TIME walk and also for the time necessary to use the toilet , TIME .

Mr PERSON was detained there for DATE in complete isolation . Despite numerous requests from his lawyer , human rights groups and representatives of the NORP community , no visitor was allowed to meet him .

Following the first applicant 's arrest on DATE the competent authorities observed that he was not in possession of a document valid for international travel . On DATE ORG wrote to ORG requesting its assistance in obtaining of a laissez - passer from ORG in GPE . ORG issued that document on DATE . On DATE ORG contacted ORG .

On DATE the first applicant was deported from GPE . He was brought to the airport and put on the first available direct flight to GPE .

His wife , PERSON , and their children initially remained in GPE . In DATE the second applicant , who was then DATE , completed first grade in the elementary school in GPE . The third applicant , who was DATE at that time , attended preparatory school .

As PERSON had no income in GPE and the first applicant was unable to provide financial support from GPE , on DATE PERSON and the second and third applicants left GPE . They went initially to GPE where they stayed for a month with PERSON . As there was allegedly no room for the family there , PERSON and the children went to GPE , to the home of PERSON parents . Mr PERSON travelled to GPE on a DATE visa and on DATE returned to GPE as he had allegedly no legal right of remaining in GPE .

On DATE counsel for Mr PERSON submitted appeals against Order no . DATE ( the revocation of residence order ) to ORG ( NORP административен съд ) and to ORG .

The latter appeal was rejected on DATE by ORG at ORG . The decision stated that in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW an order concerning a matter of national security was not subject to review .

The appeal to ORG was transmitted by decision of the court to ORG with instructions to complete the case - file . Thereafter it was transmitted to ORG ( GPE градски съд ) , which was competent to deal with it .

On DATE ORG , sitting in camera , granted Mr PERSON lawyer 's request for a stay of execution . The court noted that orders issued under LAW were not subject to judicial review if they directly concerned issues of national security . The court found , however , that the evidence submitted to it by ORG did not support the allegation that the first applicant posed a threat to national security or to the national interests . In these circumstances the court considered that the appeal could not be declared inadmissible at that stage , the holding of a hearing being necessary . Pending such hearing it was appropriate to stay the execution of Order no . DATE to avoid an infringement of the first applicant 's rights .

On DATE ORG filed an objection with ORG against its ruling of DATE and submitted “ certificate ” no . ORG which stated that Mr PERSON

“ had committed acts against the national security and the interests of GPE , consisting in unlawful religious activity on the territory of the country encroaching on the national interests and the rights of the religious , ethnic and minority groups in the conservation of the national and cultural values and traditions ” .

On DATE ORG , sitting in camera , reversed its ruling of DATE and rejected the first applicant 's appeal against Order no . DATE . The court noted that ORG had certified that Mr PERSON had committed acts against national security . The court also noted that ORG had classified these acts as falling with the scope of LAW ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW . It followed that Order no . DATE concerned issues of national security and was not subject to judicial review .

Counsel for the first applicant learned about the rejection of PERSON PERSON 's appeal on DATE . On DATE she appealed to ORG . These proceedings ended by judgment of ORG of DATE , which found that orders issued under LAW ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW were not subject to appeal and need not be reasoned . They should merely state the legal provision on which they were based .

On DATE the first applicant 's lawyer appealed to ORG against his detention . She relied on LAW . On an unspecified date the President of ORG ruled that the appeal was inadmissible .

On DATE counsel for the first applicant complained to the competent prosecution authorities against the detention of Mr LOC and stated that she had been refused access to her client . On DATE the competent prosecution authority dismissed the appeal . It found that the police had acted within their powers .

On DATE counsel for the first applicant appealed to ORG against Order no . CARDINAL ( the deportation and detention order ) . Counsel stated , inter alia , that the first applicant 's appeal against the revocation of his residence permit ( against Order no . DATE ) was still pending , that he had never sought to abscond and that he had reported voluntarily to the NORP police station when summoned . She again relied on LAW ( ORG ) and also requested a stay of execution .

These proceedings have not resulted in any decision . On DATE ORG filed an answer requesting the rejection of the appeal . There has been no hearing in the case .

On DATE the first applicant 's lawyer complained to ORG , ORG ( PERSON прокурор ) and other institutions . She alleged violations of , inter alia , LAW ORG .

In DATE Mr PERSON took part in a religious seminar in GPE . The seminar was attended by several NORP religious leaders of national and regional level , including the person who in DATE was elected to the post of , and then registered by the competent ORG agency as , Chief Mufti of NORP . At a certain point during the seminar the police arrived , and took away printed material and videotapes used at the seminar . No relevant criminal proceedings against any participant at the seminar have ever been brought .

In DATE the first applicant started teaching religious classes . They took place DATE TIME and TIME in the building of ORG in GPE , and were attended by NORP children and occasionally by their parents . The classes were organised together with the board of the NORP religious community in GPE . On DATE the board had invited Mr PERSON to teach a course in the NORP religion to children and their parents . Its decision stated that the first applicant was suitable for the job as he knew the NORP language and had a good reputation . On DATE ORG ( районно мюфтийство ) issued to the first applicant a certificate stating that he was authorised to preach on the territory of the NORP district in accordance , inter alia , with the Statute of the NORP religious denomination in GPE and the decisions of ORG ( QUANTITY мюсюлмански съвет ) . The certificate was later confirmed by the Chief Mufti of NORP .

The Government asserted that shortly after his arrival in GPE in DATE the first applicant , together with local NORP , had sought to organise an NORP study centre , that he had rented a house for that purpose , that his plans had provoked a negative public reaction and that after having established through an inquiry that the requirements of LAW had not been met , the competent authorities had prevented the realisation of the project . There had been allegedly a danger that the NORP centre would propagate extremist views . Mr PERSON had been orally warned against engaging in unlawful religious activities .

In support of the above statement the ORG submitted copies of several newspaper articles and CARDINAL declarations , CARDINAL of which was signed by CARDINAL inhabitants of GPE protesting against the opening of an NORP centre in town .

The ORG notes that the names on the list of those who signed the protest suggest that it was supported exclusively by persons of NORP ethnic origin .

The Government have not submitted any information pertaining to the alleged inquiry undertaken by the competent authorities or the requirements of LAW that had not allegedly been met .

The first applicant submitted that he had intended to open a computer training centre , but had abandoned his plans after meeting a hostile reaction from people who considered that the computer centre would be a front for religious courses .

The Government alleged that the first applicant had sought to impose fundamentalist ORG on others through the use of force and threats .

In support of that allegation the ORG submitted CARDINAL statements by PERSON , the person whom the first applicant had married through a NORP religious ceremony .

The first statement was written by her on DATE . On DATE Mr Al - Nashif had locked her up in her room in a hotel where they had been staying during a trip to GPE . PERSON had called the police . She and the first applicant had been brought to the police station where they had submitted written statements and had been released . No charges had been brought against Mr PERSON on that occasion . He submitted that he had locked the door as PERSON had been in a depressed state and could have hurt herself .

In her statement to the police PERSON wrote that the first applicant had told her that she should believe in PERSON or burn in Hell , but she had replied that she loved PERSON . The first applicant had also told her to dress as a NORP woman . She further stated that she had read in the local press about the threat of fundamentalism in GPE . She knew that people with “ black briefcases full of MONEY notes ” were entering GPE with the purpose of spreading NORP , brainwashing NORP and waging “ Jihad - death to NORP ” . She knew that they were using “ bombs , guns , sedatives and other inadmissible means in order to smuggle into the country illegal [ copies of the ] Koran , drugs , and more ” .

The Government submitted a second written statement by PERSON , which was made on DATE and addressed to the ORG , for the purposes of these proceedings . That statement repeated PERSON earlier allegations and added that the first applicant had operated with large amounts of cash , had given charity for the building of FAC and religious schools and had distributed food and clothes . He had allegedly made video tapes recording the results of his activities and had sent them to his benefactors “ in the NORP states ” .

The Government stated ( in submissions to the ORG and through the “ information note ” described below ) that Mr PERSON had been a representative of the NORP foundation Tayba , which had allegedly continued the activities of the “ banned ” foundations PERSON and PERSON .

Further , Mr Al - Nashif had registered several commercial firms in GPE and his partners in these firms had included persons who had been co - ordinators of fundamentalist organisations such as ORG and FAC . Finally , there existed information that Mr PERSON had performed management and co - ordination functions in the “ illegitimate ” ORG , NORP branch .

The Government did not provide further details about those organisations .

The first applicant replied that he had never been a representative for the ORG foundation which , in any event , as of DATE , was still functioning lawfully in GPE . It had been registered in GPE in DATE . By Decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG had authorised the foundation to engage in religious activities .

The PERSON foundation was not a fundamentalist organisation either . It had been registered in GPE in DATE and DATE the competent court had certified that its registration had not been terminated . The former Chief Mufti , whose election to that post had been registered by ORG in DATE , was a member of its managing board .

The ORG had indeed been dissolved on DATE on the ground that its goals were unlawful . However , its representative had not been among the persons named by the Government as Mr PERSON 's business partners .

The applicants submitted copies of certificates issued by the legal persons ' register at the competent court .

The Government stated that the seminar had been organised under the auspices of the PERSON foundation , which was allegedly known as CARDINAL of the disguised creatures of ORG , a fundamentalist organisation . The police had considered the seminar unlawful and dangerous for national security . The printed and video material that had been confiscated had disclosed preaching of “ religious and ethnic extremism ” . The police had put an end to the seminar . CARDINAL of the instructors who had participated had been deported from GPE . Mr PERSON had allegedly been CARDINAL of the organisers . He and all other participants had received oral warnings .

NORP In support of these allegations the Government submitted copies of newspaper articles .

The applicants submitted a declaration by the Chief Mufti of NORP , dated DATE , apparently prepared for the purposes of the present case , stating that the only sponsor of the DATE seminar had been ORG , registered in GPE and in many other countries , including GPE . The Chief Mufti further stated that the seminar had been devoted to traditional religious teaching . The police had gone there , apparently in response to an anonymous call . They had taken away material , part of which they had then returned . As the police had not established any wrongdoing , the seminar had continued after an interruption .

The Government stated that against the background of the first applicant 's religious activities DATE the authorities had justifiably feared that the classes given by him to children could be dangerous .

In support of this allegation the ORG submitted copies of newspaper articles and a copy of a CARDINAL - page report by a police officer in GPE , addressed to his superiors . The report , dated DATE , stated as follows :

“ I report hereby that I received the following information through a third person :

... [ A ] Mr Daruish Auni , NORP national , preaches to some of the inhabitants in [ a ] neighbourhood [ in GPE ] .

He disseminates NORP literature and offers aid : money , as well as [ sacrificial ] meat , PERSON . There exist indications that audio cassettes with religious content are being distributed and that people listen to them in their homes . ”

The first applicant categorically denied the allegation that he had offered money or any other incentive to encourage attendance at his religious courses .

After the hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case the ORG submitted an “ information note ” issued on DATE by ORG , apparently for the purposes of the proceedings in the present case . The note reiterated the allegations submitted by the Government as regards Mr PERSON religious activities , including PERSON contention that he had been receiving money from abroad “ in suitcases full of CARDINAL bills ” .

Article CARDINAL provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The courts shall review the lawfulness of the administration 's acts and decisions .

( CARDINAL ) Physical and legal persons shall have the right to appeal against all administrative acts and decisions that affect them , save in the cases expressly specified by ORG . ”

This law establishes general rules concerning the delivery of , and appeals against , administrative decisions .

According to Sections DATE and DATE , all administrative decisions are subject to judicial review except , inter alia , those “ directly concerning national security and defence ” .

DATE . Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) provides that the Minister of the ORG or other officials authorised by him may revoke a foreigner 's residence permit “ where by his acts he has endangered the security or the interests of ORG or where there exists information that he acts against the security of the country ” .

Section CARDINAL provides that the Minister of the ORG or other officials authorised by him may order a foreigner 's deportation where “ his presence in the country poses a serious threat to national security or public order ” .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , insofar as relevant , provides as follows :

“ Until [ his ] ... deportation ... the foreigner may be placed in a specialised centre at the discretion of the Minister of the ORG or other officers authorised by him . ”

Section CARDINAL provided , as in force at the relevant time :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Orders issued under LAW CARDINAL imposing administrative measures which directly concern national security shall not be subject to appeal .

( CARDINAL ) These orders shall state only their legal ground . ”

The NORP courts have differed on the question whether a mere reference to national security in the grounds of an order under LAW is sufficient to declare an appeal against such an order inadmissible or whether some proof that national security is indeed at stake should be required ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above and ORG judgment of DATE in case CARDINAL ) .

In DATE ORG adopted a law on interpretation of LAW of LAW , clarifying that a court examining the admissibility of an appeal against an administrative decision citing as a legal basis LAW ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ directly related to national security ” ) should automatically declare the appeal inadmissible without collecting evidence . A motion by CARDINAL members of ORG and by judges of ORG to declare that interpretative law , insofar as relevant here , unconstitutional was rejected by ORG on DATE on formal grounds .

On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in a case brought by CARDINAL members of ORG who considered that Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW should be repealed as being unconstitutional and in contravention of the LAW .

ORG could not reach a majority , an equal number of judges having voted in favour of the application and against it .

According to ORG practice , in such a situation the request for a legal provision to be struck down is considered as dismissed by default .

The judges who found that LAW ( CARDINAL ) was not unconstitutional and did not contravene the LAW considered that the LAW authorised ORG to exclude the right to seek judicial review of certain categories of administrative decision provided that a constitutionally guaranteed legitimate aim overrode the interests of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms . National security was such a legitimate aim . Its protection had priority over the protection of individual rights and freedoms . Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW took account of the fact that confidential information was at stake in deportation decisions based on national security . The wishes of a foreigner who had imperilled the security or the interests of ORG could not prevail over national security considerations . Furthermore , there existed a possibility of filing an administrative appeal to the Minister of the ORG or to ORG , which was a sufficient remedy .

As to the LAW , its provisions permitted restrictions on human rights on grounds of national security and did not enshrine a right to a judicial appeal against deportation decisions .

DATE . The judges who held that LAW ( CARDINAL ) was unconstitutional considered that the principle of proportionality inherent in the LAW required that limitations on constitutional rights could not go beyond what was strictly necessary for the achievement of the legitimate aim pursued and that regard should be had to the fundamental importance of the right to judicial remedies enshrined in LAW . Depriving aliens of any possibility of obtaining judicial review of a deportation decision was disproportionate . The interests of national security were sufficiently protected as the administration could order immediate execution of a deportation order notwithstanding a pending application for judicial review . Furthermore , it was not true that an administrative appeal was possible .

This second group of judges also considered that the impugned provision was incompatible with the Convention as interpreted in the case - law of ORG .

The unavailability of judicial review could lead to violations of LAW if an alien was deported to a country where he or she risked inhuman treatment .

The judges further stated , inter alia :

“ LAW allows the confinement [ of an alien pending deportation ] at the discretion of ORG , without limitation in time ... Neither that LAW nor any other law provides for any possibility of review ... [ However , ] the LAW , in its LAW , requires a remedy ...

Deportation ... may constitute an interference with family life [ under LAW ] . Therefore , an assessment must be made as to whether such a measure is necessary in a NORP society in the interests of national security ...

National security is one of the values of a NORP society , as much as fundamental rights and freedoms are . A domestic legal provision would be contrary to the Convention if there were no guarantees against administrative abuse and arbitrariness . These guarantees must be provided for by law . The balance between fundamental rights and the public interest must be assessed in every case by a court or another body independent from the executive . ”

In DATE LAW was amended . The possibility of filing an administrative appeal to the Minister of the ORG was introduced ( LAW , as amended ) . A new LAW a stated that an alien should not be expelled to a country where his life , liberty or physical integrity were endangered .

The rule providing that decisions citing national security as grounds need not state any reasons and are not amenable to judicial review remains in force ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The law does not require any consideration of the question whether a deportation decision would interfere with the alien 's right to family life and , if so , whether a fair balance has been struck between the public interest and the rights of the individual concerned .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Religious Denominations Act provide , inter alia , that the statute and rules of a religious denomination shall be submitted for approval to ORG or to one of the Deputy Prime Ministers . Where they contain provisions which are contrary to the law , public order , or morals , ORG may require their amendment , or refuse to approve them .

Section CARDINAL also provides that the statute and rules of the religious denomination must regulate all matters related to its finances and internal self - regulation , insofar as these matters are not regulated by LAW . LAW does not contain provisions regulating religious classes , except for LAW which concerns the opening of high schools and institutions of higher education for the training of religious ministers .

The Statute of the NORP religious organisation in GPE , in force at the relevant time , was adopted at a national conference of the NORP believers held on DATE . On DATE it was approved by a Deputy Prime Minister .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Statute provide for local NORP boards ( настоятелства ) and ORG ( районни мюсюлмански съвети ) who are competent , inter alia , to organise classes for the study of the Koran .

The Government relied in their submissions on ORG , a declaration adopted by ORG in DATE . They referred to the passages in which national security was defined so as to include the following :

“ ... protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of NORP citizens , defence of the national borders , territorial integrity and independence , ... and the democratic functioning of public and private institutions so as to ensure that society and the nation shall preserve and enhance their well - being . ”

The Framework Concept further pointed to the possible threats to national security and stated , inter alia :

“ Economic and social differences in LOC have deepened and new insecurity and risks have thus appeared . Conflicts on an ethnic , religious and social basis have emerged ... Religious and ethnic communities , some of which are in conflict , co - exist in south - eastern LOC . Since the creation of new LOC certain communities have displayed a tendency towards insularity . That has sharply increased the regional threats to our national security .... Religious and ethnic extremism influences local communities that lack strong democratic traditions ... ”


The applicants , Sedat Şen and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in NORP and ORG . They are represented before the ORG by Mr Muharrem Turan , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

Following an administrative ordinance issued by ORG ( ORG ) on DATE the applicants and their families were denied access to the military LOC on the ground that the photographs showing their wives carrying NORP scarves were not acceptable for the military and social security identity cards . The applicants’ close relatives carrying NORP scarves were also not allowed into the military buildings .

On DATE ORG ( Yüksek Askeri Şura ) decided to discharge the applicants from the army on grounds of acts of “ insubordination and immoral conduct ” pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL .

The Government submit the following in the light of the intelligence reports concerning the applicants :

– Non - commissioned officer PERSON was a member of the FAC branch of the PERSON sect . He was involved in disseminating the ideology of the sect . He refused to attend social activities with his family and his wife refused to shake hands with men . He had an antisocial character and his wife wore an NORP scarf . He was considered to be an insubordinate soldier by his superiors .

– Non - commissioned officer ORG supported the “ NORP ” opinion . He had an antisocial character and his wife wore an NORP scarf . He refused to attend social events with his wife . He established contacts with other soldiers supporting the “ NORP ” opinion . His wife continued to carry the NORP headscarf despite warnings . He was considered to be an insubordinate soldier by his superiors .

A committee of CARDINAL members of the armed forces concluded , in the light of the findings of the above intelligence reports concerning the applicants , that the applicants had breached military discipline and that they should be discharged from the army . Subsequently , ORG based its decision on that opinion .

The relevant provisions of the LAW are as follows :

“ None of the rights and freedoms set forth in the LAW may be exercised with the aim of undermining the territorial integrity of the ORG or the indivisible unity of its people , imperilling the existence of ORG and the Republic , abolishing fundamental rights and freedoms , handing over control of the ORG to a single individual or group or bringing about the dominance of CARDINAL social class over the others , establishing discrimination on the grounds of language , race , religion or adherence to a religious sect or setting up by any other means a ORG order based on such beliefs and opinions . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to freedom of conscience , faith and religious belief . Prayers , worship and religious services shall be conducted freely , provided that they do not violate the provisions of LAW . No one shall be compelled to participate in prayers , worship or religious services or to reveal his religious beliefs and convictions ; nor shall he be censured or prosecuted because of his religious beliefs or convictions . ...

No one may exploit or abuse religion , religious feelings or things held sacred by religion in any manner whatsoever with a view to causing the social , economic , political or legal order of the ORG to be based on religious precepts , even if only in part , or for the purpose of securing political or personal influence thereby . ”

“ All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ...

Decisions of the President of the Republic concerning matters within his sole jurisdiction and decisions of ORG shall not be subject to judicial review .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW provides that a disciplinary action can not be imposed to the civil servants provided that that the right to defence is respected . Moreover , it lays out that the disciplinary actions , other that the warnings and the reprimands are subject to legal control . The provisions concerning the soldiers are reserved . LAW on ORG stipulates that the disciplinary actions imposed to the soldiers are not subject to legal control .

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held , shall be subject to the provisions of LAW .

Where their conduct and attitude reveal that they have adopted unlawful opinions . ”

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline and immoral behaviour shall be subject to the provisions of LAW . LAW shall lay down which authorities have jurisdiction to commence proceedings , to examine , monitor and draw conclusions from personnel assessment files and to carry out any other act or formality in such proceedings . A decision of ORG is required to discharge an officer whose case has been submitted by ORG to ORG . ”

Section CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW provides :

“ ( b ) Discharge from the army for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct :

Notwithstanding the seniority in the service , the non - commissioned officers whose maintenance is considered to be inappropriate for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct are subject to PERSON on ORG . The investigation , examination and follow - up of the notation reports and the formalities and the competent authorities fulfilling these duties are subject to the provisions of The Regulations on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers . The General Staff determines which non - commissioned ORG cases concerning their discharge from the army should be examined by ORG . ”

LAW on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , the compulsory retirement procedure shall be applied to all servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held :

( e ) where by his conduct and attitude the serviceman concerned has provided evidence that he holds unlawful , subversive , separatist , fundamentalist and ideological political opinions or takes an active part in the propagation of such opinions . ”


The applicant is a NORP - Kazakh company located in the city of GPE .

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against ORG “ Dniprovsky Metallurgical Kombinat ” ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , in which the ORG held PERCENT of the shares , for failure to pay under a contract for delivery of iron ore .

On DATE ORG of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region awarded the applicant ORG in compensation against the ORG for failure to comply with the contractual obligations . The court also attached the defendant 's accounts . It issued CARDINAL orders in this respect : CARDINAL for the recovery of property worth a total of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and another for the recovery of the sum of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG initiated the enforcement proceedings .

DATE numerous bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the ORG by CARDINAL companies :

- On DATE by the “ GPE PERSON ” – terminated on unspecified date ;

- On DATE by the “ GPE ” company – terminated on DATE as the ORG paid the debt ;

- On DATE by the “ PERSON ” company – terminated on DATE as the plaintiff failed to have the bankruptcy announcement published ;

- On DATE by the “ Intermet ” company – terminated on DATE as the ORG paid the debt ;

- On DATE by the “ NORP ” company DATE terminated on DATE as the plaintiff withdrew his claim ;

- On DATE by the “ ORG ” company DATE terminated on DATE as the plaintiff failed to have the bankruptcy announcement published ;

- On DATE by the “ Rolikon ” company – terminated on DATE ;

- On DATE by the “ Tsesiya ” company – the bankruptcy proceeding are pending to date .

The respective court 's rulings on opening these bankruptcy proceedings ordered suspension of the enforcement proceedings against the ORG and introduction of the moratorium on a payment of debts to its creditors .

DATE and DATE ORG of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region ( as of DATE - ORG of GPE ) rejected the applicant 's numerous requests to initiated bankruptcy proceeding against the ORG as such proceedings were already pending upon other companies ' requests .

On DATE ORG of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region , upon the applicant 's request , modified the modalities of enforcing the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In particular , it decided to attach the debtor 's property .

On DATE ORG resumed the enforcement proceedings and suspended them due to the application of the moratorium .

On DATE ORG of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region rejected the applicant 's request to initiated bankruptcy proceeding against the ORG . On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , rejected the applicant 's cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG sold the ORG - owned shares of the ORG to private persons . Under the terms of the sales , the latter undertook to pay all the outstanding debts of the ORG .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the applicant 's favour remains unenforced .

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


The applicant is a NORP citizen born in DATE and resident in GPE .

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

The applicant is the single mother of A. , born in DATE . On DATE was placed in public care by an emergency order issued pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( lastensuojelulaki , barnskyddslag DATE ) . The applicant was informed of the public care order DATE . A. ’s situation had been followed by the GPE social authorities for some time , following reports received from the police and neighbours . In DATE his behaviour had deteriorated significantly , involving uncontrollable aggressive behaviour against his peers .

A. was placed in a temporary reception centre , where the applicant could visit him on a DATE basis . The emergency order was extended on DATE and on DATE ORG ( sosiaalilautakunta , socialnämnden ) of GPE replaced it with an ordinary care order pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant ’s appeal against the immediate enforcement of the care order was dismissed on DATE by ORG ( lääninoikeus , länsrätten ) of PERSON . Her further appeal was dismissed by ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE left the reception centre with the applicant , who eventually took him to GPE , where the applicant ’s mother was living and where PERSON began to attend school . Neither the applicant nor PERSON attended ORG hearing on DATE concerning the ordinary care order but the applicant was represented by counsel . CARDINAL witnesses were examined at ORG request ( i.e. the Acting Director of the reception centre and a psychologist who had examined ORG both in the presence and in the absence of the applicant ) and CARDINAL witnesses proposed by ORG of its own motion ( i.e. A. ’s teacher , his school counsellor and his personal assistant in the reception centre ) . Counsel for the applicant did not propose any witnesses .

The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed on DATE , ORG having found , inter alia , that ORG ’s public care had been justified in order to carry out a complete assessment of his conditions and the extent of psychological assistance required to treat his behavioural disturbance . Although such an investigation would have been possible as an open - care assistance measure , the applicant had refused to co - operate with the social authorities both in that respect and more generally . The applicant ’s further appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to terminate PERSON ’s public care and pay her damages . Her request for termination of the public care was allegedly never examined by ORG , as one of its senior officials considered that the applicant had not adduced any fresh information regarding her conditions .

During a visit to GPE on DATE was apprehended by customs officials and placed in a children ’s home . At meetings with social welfare officials in DATE the applicant and PERSON opposed the latter ’s intended transfer to a children ’s home in PERSON , where he was placed by decision of CARDINAL DATE .

According to the Government , the facts of the case are as follows .

The first report concerning PERSON had been drawn up already in DATE . A. ’s situation had been closely followed in GPE by the PERSON social authorities due to the applicant ’s mental problems and difficulties in assuming PERSON ’s upbringing . In DATE the applicant had requested that A. be placed in a children ’s home but without wishing to discuss the reasons therefor . The authorities had located a place for A. but the applicant had refused to accept it . Neither had she accepted DATE - care for A. The applicant had failed to attend the meetings agreed on and had failed to be available for home visits . The GPE authorities had followed the family situation in DATE , having received several reports from neighbours , the police and A. ’s school . The applicant had not accepted any help from the social authorities , and had only occasionally been in contact with A. ’s school . In DATE the social authorities had made an appointment for A. at a child psychiatric clinic , but the applicant had refused to take him there . Nor had she accepted any open - care assistance . During a home visit in DATE the social worker had noticed that their CARDINAL - room flat had contained only a double - bed and CARDINAL chair with a small table for A. ’s homework . In DATE his situation had worsened considerably : he had repeatedly behaved in an aggressive manner towards other pupils . The applicant had failed to attend a meeting with the school psychologist to discuss A. ’s disruptive behaviour . The applicant having told the social authorities that she would take GPE to GPE if they were not left alone , PERSON had been placed in emergency care . Social welfare officials had visited the applicant DATE to inform her about the order . It had not been possible to inform her of the care intention at the meeting with the school psychologist on DATE because she had failed to attend that meeting .

On DATE A. ’s emergency care had been extended until DATE . Assistance in open care had remained impossible because the applicant had rejected all help . In DATE had been examined by psychologist PERSON , who had concluded that he was in need of a living environment with clear and safe limits and needed to learn and find ways to solve conflict situations .

On DATE the applicant had taken A. out of the reception centre and had apparently sent him to GPE alone . The applicant had refused to co - operate with the social welfare authorities and had not revealed PERSON ’s whereabouts and conditions . On DATE she had requested termination of ORG ’s public care . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE – which had been communicated to the applicant – the Board had noted that the normal care order had been finally upheld DATE . ORG had decided to take no measures until the applicant had provided information on A. ’s whereabouts and her own conditions , thereby enabling ORG to examine her requests in accordance with the law . To that end , she had been invited to forward any opinions prepared by the NORP child welfare , school and health authorities , on the basis of which the NORP authorities would contact them to establish A. ’s conditions and decide on his future care .

On DATE had been apprehended by NORP customs officials and placed in a child welfare institution . The applicant had failed to attend a meeting to discuss the future implementation of A. ’s public care and had refused to inform the officials of his conditions in GPE . On DATE A. had been placed in another child welfare institution after both he himself and the applicant had been heard . The applicant had maintained that there was no need for public care and had refused to inform the authorities of her place of residence . On DATE had been placed in a family home specialised in the foster care of LANGUAGE - speaking children . The applicant , represented by counsel , had objected to ORG ’s continued public care and had challenged the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE before ORG and ORG which had rejected her appeals on DATE and DATE respectively .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant had again requested termination of ORG ’s public care . The social authorities had asked ORG ’s foster parents and the headmaster of his school to give their written opinions . On DATE ORG had decided to maintain the public care and the applicant had not appealed . ORG had recalled that ORG ’s public care had been justified in view of the applicant ’s difficulties in assuming his upbringing . At no stage had she accepted that A. needed psycho - social examinations and care . Nor had she recognised her own difficulties for which she would need psychiatric help before being able to look after A.

The relevant legislation is outlined in the ORG ’s judgment in PERSON and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .


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

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

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

By judgment of DATE ORG of the Moscow Region examined the criminal case against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused . The court convicted the applicant of aggravated blackmail and kidnapping and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . That sentence was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

Thereafter the applicant sought to initiate supervisory review of his case .

The applicant 's supervisory review request to the ORG of ORG was partly successful . On DATE the Presidium of ORG , sitting as a supervisory review body , re - examined his case and partly changed the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested CARDINAL of the Deputy Presidents of ORG to initiate supervisory review proceedings in his case before ORG , arguing that the lower courts wrongly assessed the evidence in the case and failed to apply the domestic law correctly .

Apparently in response to that request , on DATE the Deputy President of ORG decided to initiate supervisory review proceedings in respect of the decisions of the lower courts in the applicant 's case . The main reason for that decision was that while the lower courts had made a correct assessment of the facts of the case , they had erred in the legal characterisation of the offence committed by the applicant .

According to the Government , on DATE notifications that the supervisory review hearing would take place on DATE were sent to the applicant and the lawyer who had represented him at the trial . They were also invited to respond to the arguments of the Deputy President of ORG .

According to the applicant , he received a notification in the form of a telegram about the hearing of DATE on DATE . From the documents submitted by the applicant it follows that he received a copy of the request of DATE only on DATE , that is already after the supervisory review hearing in his case .

The applicant explained that once the main set of criminal proceedings was over , the lawyer in question had ceased to represent him . He submitted a copy of the lawyer 's letter dated DATE , in which the lawyer had confirmed the absence of any agreement to act on the applicant 's behalf in the supervisory review proceedings of DATE . The lawyer also confirmed the receipt of the notification of CARDINAL DATE , along with a copy of the request of DATE , but stated that he had been unable to react to these documents for lack of authority .

The parties agreed that the applicant asked to attend the supervisory review hearing in person .

The applicant submitted a copy of that request . The request was made on DATE but was not received by ORG until DATE .

On DATE ORG , in the presence of the prosecutor and one of the other co - defendants ' lawyers , examined the arguments of the Deputy President 's supervisory review appeal and amended the sentence by changing the charges of aggravated kidnapping to aggravated deprivation of liberty . The applicant 's sentence was thus reduced from DATE of imprisonment accordingly .

By letter of DATE ORG notified the applicant of the outcome of the supervisory review proceedings .

Section VI , LAW of LAW of DATE ( Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РСФСР ) , in force at the material time , allowed certain officials to challenge a judgment which had become effective and to have the case reviewed .

Pursuant to LAW , a judgment became effective and enforceable as of DATE when the appeal instance pronounced its decision or , if the judgment had not been appealed against , when the time - limit for appeal expired .

“ The grounds for quashing or changing a judgment [ on supervisory review ] are the same as [ those for setting aside judgments which have not become effective on cassation appeals ] . ”

“ The grounds for quashing or changing a judgment on appeal are as follows :

( i ) prejudicial or incomplete inquest , investigation or court examination ;

( ii ) inconsistency between the facts of the case and the conclusions reached by the court ;

( iii ) serious violation of procedural law ;

( iv ) misapplication of [ substantive ] law ;

( v ) inappropriate sentence considering the gravity of the offence and the convict 's personality . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE provided that the power to lodge a request for a supervisory review could be exercised by ORG , the President of ORG of GPE and their respective Deputies in relation to any judgment other than those of the Presidium of ORG , and by the Presidents of the regional courts in respect of any judgment of a regional or subordinate court . A party to criminal or civil proceedings could solicit the intervention of such officials for a review .

According to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , the request for supervisory review was to be considered by the judicial board ( the ORG ) of the competent court . The court could examine the case on the merits , and was not bound by the scope and grounds of the extraordinary appeal . The ORG could dismiss or uphold the request . If the request was dismissed , the earlier judgment remained in force . If it upheld the request , the ORG could decide whether to quash the judgment and terminate the criminal proceedings , to remit the case for a new investigation , or for fresh court examination at any instance , to uphold a first - instance judgment reversed on appeal , or to amend and uphold any of the earlier judgments .

Article QUANTITY of LAW of DATE provided that the ORG could in the same proceedings reduce a sentence or amend the legal classification of a conviction or sentence to the defendant 's advantage . If it found a sentence or legal classification too lenient , it had to remit the case for fresh examination .

Under LAW of LAW of Criminal Procedure of DATE , a public prosecutor took part in a hearing before a supervisory review body . The convicted person and his or her counsel could be summoned if the supervisory review court found it necessary . If summoned , they were to be given an opportunity to examine the application for supervisory review and to make oral submissions at the hearing . On DATE ORG of GPE ruled that the convicted person 's presence was not optional but mandatory if the grounds for initiating the supervisory review proceedings could worsen his personal situation .

Under LAW of LAW , which entered into force on DATE , the convicted person and his counsel are notified of the date , time and place of hearings before the supervisory review court . They may participate in the hearing provided that they have made a specific request to do so .